Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos

Last updated
Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 31, 1987
Decided June 24, 1987
Full case nameCorporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos
Docket no. 86-179
Citations483 U.S. 327 ( more )
107 S. Ct. 2862; 97 L. Ed. 2d 273
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Permitting religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion in any employment activity pertaining to the religious organization—whether the job itself is secular or religious—is constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor  · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Rehnquist, Powell, Stevens, Scalia
ConcurrenceBrennan (in judgment), joined by Marshall
ConcurrenceBlackmun (in judgment)
ConcurrenceO'Connor (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Appellee Arthur Frank Mayson worked for 16 years in an organization operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). He was terminated from employment when he "failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples." [1] He filed suit in district court, arguing that his firing violated discrimination on the basis of religion in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court agreed. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court (under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1252). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII's exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.

Contents

History and District Court ruling

In the early 1980s, five individuals were terminated from employment at Deseret Gymnasium, a non-profit facility in Salt Lake City, Utah, which was operated by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church. The reason for termination was "solely because each of them was unable or refused to satisfy the worthiness requirements for a temple recommend from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." [2] The individuals filed suit, alleging impermissible discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of § 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They argued that section 703 stated, "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," with the exception that "it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees . . . on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise." [3]

The LDS Church argued that section 702 protected the organization in its employment decisions, because the act included an exemption: "This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities." [4] The individuals responded that permitting a religious organization to discriminate "against employees performing secular, non-religious jobs on the basis of religion would violate the establishment clause of the [F]irst [A]mendment." [2]

The district court concluded that the individuals were engaged in non-religious activity but noted that section 702 protected religious organizations in their employment decisions related to any position in the organization, no matter how religious or nonreligious the activity was. The court then addressed whether the exemption violated the Establishment Clause by using the Lemon test. The court ruled that the exemption permitted by section 702 violated the second prong of the Lemon test (principal effect not advancing or inhibiting religion) because the section "singles out religious entities for a benefit, rather than benefiting a broad grouping of which religious organizations are only a part" and "burdens the free exercise rights of employees of religious institutions who work in nonreligious jobs." [1]

Supreme Court rulings

Majority opinion

In reversing the district court on the supposition that section 702 singled out religious entities for a benefit, the Court stated that it had "never indicated that statutes that give special consideration to religious groups are per se invalid" and that "[w]here, as here, government acts with the proper purpose of lifting a regulation that burdens the exercise of religion, we see no reason to require that the exemption come packaged with benefits to secular entities."

In addressing the issue of a free exercise burden of employees, the Court noted that "it is a significant burden on a religious organization to require it, on pain of substantial liability, to predict which of its activities a secular court will consider religious." Further, although the appellee's "freedom of choice in religious matters was impinged upon, [] it was the Church (through the COP and the CPB), and not the Government, who put him to the choice of changing his religious practices or losing his job."

The Court also reiterated, "A law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose. For a law to have forbidden "effects" under Lemon, it must be fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion through its own activities and influence. . . . [W]e do not see how any advancement of religion achieved by the Gymnasium can be fairly attributed to the Government, as opposed to the Church."

Concurrence in judgment by Brennan and Marshall

Justices Brennan and Marshall agreed with the court on the significant burden issue, stating that nonprofit organizations should be categorically exempt from religious discrimination issues because the prospect that a court would attempt to determine whether or not the nonprofit activity was reasonably religious or related to the religion's purposes would "chill" religious activity.

Concurrences in judgment by Blackmun and O'Connor

Though he wrote a brief separate opinion, Blackmun stated he basically agreed with O'Connor's reasoning that the Court's majority opinion could be read too deferentially toward religion, and that though in this particular case the judgment was correct, there was concern that profit-making enterprises run by religions may be improperly exempted from religious discrimination laws.

Implications

According to Google Scholar search results, the Court's ruling (or one of the concurring opinions) has been relied on in about 2,700 court cases as of June 2019, indicating that this case has had substantial impact on the development of First Amendment religion case law. The case is also cited in thousands of articles and books on case law.

Related Research Articles

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. Lemon was a major precedent in federal and local courts until it was effectively overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom From Religion Foundation</span> American nonprofit organization

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is an American nonprofit organization, which advocates for atheists, agnostics, and nontheists. Formed in 1976, FFRF promotes the separation of church and state, and challenges the legitimacy of many federal and state programs that are faith-based. It supports groups such as nonreligious students and clergy who want to leave their faith.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the vouchers could be used for private religious schools.

Freedom of religion in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Philippines.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span> Overview of religious freedom in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications. The University of Virginia provided funding to every student organization that met funding-eligibility criteria, which Wide Awake, the student religious publication, fulfilled. The university's defense claimed that denying student activity funding of the religious magazine was necessary to avoid the University's violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state. The copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private funding, but the Court ruled that because they were being placed in public classrooms they were in violation of the First Amendment.

Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989), was a case brought before the US Supreme Court in November 1988. The case was to test the legality of a Texas statute that exempted religious publications from paying state sales tax.

<i>Davis v. Beason</i> 1890 United States Supreme Court case

Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), was a United States Supreme Court case affirming, by a 9–0 vote, that federal laws against polygamy did not conflict with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<i>DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School</i> American legal case

DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 was an employment discrimination case brought under the ADEA. The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment prior to his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to ADEA laws, and if it were that this case against it was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to utilize the administrative remedies available.

Public accommodations, in the law of the United States, are generally defined as facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used by the public at large. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.

Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy is a Massachusetts Superior Court decision of December 16, 2015, that found that a Roman Catholic secondary school violated the state's laws against discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender when it withdrew an offer of employment from a candidate when officials learned he was in a civil same-sex marriage. It was the first decision in the United States since the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage accomplished by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges the previous June to consider the competing claims of discrimination in employment and the protections afforded religious institutions.

Freedom of religion in Montenegro refers to the extent to which people in Montenegro are freely able to practice their religious beliefs, taking into account both government policies and societal attitudes toward religious groups. Montenegro's laws guarantee the freedom of religion and outlaw several forms of religious discrimination, as well as establishing that there is no state religion in Montenegro. The government provides some funding to religious groups.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts nonprofit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, which for-profit religious organizations objected to.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, due to the agency's refusal to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.

References

  1. 1 2 Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327–349.
  2. 1 2 Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop, 594 F.Supp. 791–831 (Utah 1984).
  3. ↑ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a), (e)(1) [section 703(a)(1) and (e)(1) in the original bill].
  4. ↑ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–1(a) (section 702 in the original bill).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.