Back in 2008, a Texas federal court found that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's (SWBTS) termination of Dr. Sheri L. Klouda could not be judicially reviewed. The court found that SWBTS was a church and that Klouda was a minister as defined by the ministerial exception doctrine, so her termination was exempt from review under the First Amendment.
Klouda was an accomplished Hebrew professor who taught both women and men, and she was hired on before Paige Patterson became president of the seminary. Patterson believes Scripture teaches that no woman should have authority over a man, so he ousted Klouda from her position. She had built up years of tenure and bought a home in the DFW area, but had to move to another state to seek employment. She now teaches undergraduates at Taylor (not that there's anything necessarily wrong with the good people at Taylor!).
Out of concern for preserving the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion without interference from the state, courts have articulated a couple of doctrines. Under the ministerial exception doctrine, if a claim challenging a religious institution's employment decision involves an employee who serves a "ministerial function," the court cannot review the claim without first determining whether it is itself ecclesiastical in nature.
Because of the First Amendment, courts are prohibited from injecting themselves into disputes over matters such as theological controversy or church discipline (this is a separate doctrine called the "ecclesiastial absention doctrine").
Although Klouda's lawsuit was a private action, meaning that no state actors were involved and thus constitutional considerations do not apply (i.e. the equal proctection clause and what type of scrutiny the court should use to examine gender discrimination), the ministerial exception is problematic. In cases with government actors, as opposed to private parties, the Supreme Court has refused to make exceptions for other types of exercises of religious beliefs.
The Court has rejected the right of Mormans to practice polygamy, and the right of a Native American group to smoke peyote. There should be similar protections for gender.
Even with only private parties, I argue that when gender is involved, the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines should not apply. Religious organizations should be subject to the same laws and legal requirements as everyone else. Such a shield can allow for more sinister types of discrimination.
Of course, I am not advocating that SWBTS be forced to reinstate Klouda (as that would violate the Constitution), but rather it should be held responsible for the damages it has caused her and her family.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously never taken up the issue of the ministerial exception, but on October 5, it will hear oral argument on a case involving a teacher at private religious school who was allegedly fired for medical reasons.
I hope that it narrows the ministerial exception doctrine so that the free exercise and establishment clauses are still taken into consideration, but at the same time, religious institutions are aware they will face consequences for simply disregarding the rights of their employees.
An absurd part of this debate, which could never be brought up in court, is that Southern Baptists know full well that SWBTS is not a church and Klouda is not (and was prohibited from being) a minister. To seek this type of shelter under the law is absurd and hypocritical.
Given the conservative bent of the Supreme Court, and the propensity of many of its members to rule in favor of the most powerful, I'm not optimistic about the decision it will hand down. In any event, these injustices are precisely why I chose to become an attorney...
Comments