In the last post, this blog began a discussion of the latest U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an employment discrimination case. It was the first time the high court made a ruling on a legal concept known as the "ministerial exception" to U.S. anti-discrimination laws. A disability discrimination lawsuit was brought on behalf of a teacher who was fired in 2004 from a Lutheran school due to her illness.

Four years before her illness, the woman was promoted from a status as a "temporary" teacher to a "called" teacher and made her a minister through a vote of the church's congregation. The woman taught religion classes and occasionally led chapel services in her position with the institution.

A trial court judge threw out her disability discrimination lawsuit under the "ministerial exception," which is a legal concept arising from the separation of church and state. The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which includes federal cases in Ohio, reversed the lower court ruling. The appellate decision found the ministerial exception did not apply, because the elementary school teacher primarily taught secular subject matter.

Chief Justice John Roberts says the Sixth Circuit ruling was wrong. Roberts says the teacher was an ordained minister. Roberts writes in the recent decision that the appellate court placed too much weight on the fact that the woman only spent 45 minutes a day on religious duties. He writes, "The issue before us ... is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch." But the Chief Justice refused to define what employees of a religious institution should be considered religious employees.

"We are reluctant ... to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister," he writes in the majority opinion of the court. "It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers [the plaintiff teacher], given all the circumstances of her employment."

Justice Samuel Alito wrote his own concurring opinion. Alito writes that the ministerial exception should only apply to a worker "who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith."

But Alito reasons that the ministerial exception should not apply to all workers of the country's religious institutions. He writes that, "while a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the 'ministerial exception,' the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately in a concurring opinion, essentially ruling that courts should stay out of the matter. Thomas says courts should defer to the church on the subject of who "qualifies as a minister."

Source: AP via Washington Post, "Supreme Court keeps church job-bias disputes out of court, but leaves unanswered questions," Jan. 11, 2012