Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church (1999)

See 772 F.2d at 1168 ("Any attempt by government to restrict a church's free choice of its leaders ... constitutes a burden on the church's free exercise rights.") (emphasis added); id. at 1171 ("Bureaucratic suggestion in employment decisions of a pastoral character, in contravention of a church's own perception of its needs and purposes, would constitute unprecedented entanglement with religious authority ...") (emphasis added). 14 See also Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 ("[S]ecul…

The “government employment decisions of a pastoral character, in contravention of a church’s own perception of its needs and purposes, would constitute unprecedented entanglement with religious authority. . .”) (emphasis added). 14 See also Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 (“[S]ecular authorities would be involved in evaluating or interpreting religious doctrine.”); Simpson, 494 F.2d at 493 (“[C]ivil courts are barred by the First Amendment from determining ecclesiastical questions.”)…

Id. at 349.

Interpretation of Church Doctrine In addition to being motivated by the concern of government interference in church governance, the ministerial exception is also motivated by the concern “that secular authorities would be involved in evaluating or interpreting religious doctrine.” Tomic, 442 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir.1999)).

Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116 , 73 S.Ct. 143 , 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952); Young v. Northern Illinois Conference of United Methodist Church, 21 F.3d 184, 187 (7th Cir.1994); Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir.1999); EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455, 462-63 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952); Young v. Northern Illinois Conference of United Methodist Church, 21 F.3d 184, 187 (7th Cir. 1994); Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999); EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455, 462-63 (D.C.

See Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C., 213 F.3d at 800, 805 ; Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir. 2000); Bollard, 196 F.3d at 949 ; Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conf. of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 1999); EEOC v. Catholic Univ. of Am., 83 F.3d 455, 463 (D.C.

This second concern alone is enough to bar the involvement of the civil courts. 123 In short, we cannot conceive how the federal judiciary could determine whether an employment decision concerning a minister was based on legitimate or illegitimate grounds without inserting ourselves into a realm where the Constitution forbids us to tread, the internal management of a church. 124 Id. at 350. 125 A similar fate would be almost certain had this case originated in the Eleventh C…

Combs, 173 F.3d at 350.

Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999).

Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999).

Tex. Annual Conference, 173 F.3d 343, 345-50 (5th Cir. 1999); Hollins v.. Methodist Healthcare, Inc., 474 F.3d 223, 225-27 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 857 , 128 S.Ct. 134 , 169 L.Ed.2d 92 (2007); Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518 F.3d 472, 475-76 (7th Cir. 2008); Scharon v. St.

Interpretation of Church Doctrine In addition to being motivated by the concern of government interference in church governance, the ministerial exception is also motivated by the concern “that secular authorities would be involved in evaluating or interpreting religious doctrine.” Tomic, 442 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999)).

Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 349 (5th Cir.1999); Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d at 462 .

Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 4 173 F.3d 343, 349 (5th Cir. 1999); Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d at 5 462. 6 Others have emphasized that taking sides in a religious 7 dispute would lead an Article III court into excessive 8 entanglement in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In these sensitive areas, the state may no more require a minimum basis in doctrinal reasoning than it may supervise doctrinal content."); Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 ("We cannot conceive how the federal judiciary could determine whether an employment decision concerning a minister was based on legitimate grounds without inserting ourselves into a realm where the Constitution forbids us to tread."); Young, 21 F.3d at 186 (quoting Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169); Scharon, 929 F.2d at 3…

In these sensitive areas, the state may no more require a minimum basis in doctrinal reasoning than it may supervise doctrinal content.”); Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 ("We cannot conceive how the federal judiciary could determine whether an employment decision concerning a minister was based on legitimate grounds without inserting ourselves into a realm where the Constitution forbids us to tread.”); Young, 21 F.3d at 186 (quoting Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169); Scharon, 929 F.2d at 3…

See 4 F.3d at 172 . 13 This conclusion is consistent with the holdings of at least seven of our sister Circuits, which have adopted a limited "ministerial exception" that exempts religious institutions on First Amendment grounds from employment discrimination suits brought by clergy members or other employees serving primarily religious roles See Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C., 213 F.3d at 800, 805 ; Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d…

EEOC v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 213 F.3d 795 , 800 n. * (4th Cir.2000); Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 203 F.3d 1299, 1302-04 (11th Cir.2000); Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 348-50 (5th Cir.1999); Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d at 461-63 .

EEOC v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 213 F.3d 795 , 800 n. * (4th Cir.2000); Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 203 F.3d 1299, 1302-04 (11th Cir.2000); Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 348-50 (5th Cir.1999); Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d at 461-63 .

See Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 203 F.3d 1299, 1302-04 (11th Cir.2000); Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 347-50 (5th Cir.1999); EEOC v. Catholic Univ. of Am., 83 F.3d 455, 461-63 (D.C.Cir.1996).

See Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir. 2000) ("Investigation . . . into a church's employment of its clergy would almost always entail excessive government entangle-ment into the internal management of the church."); Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conf. of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that Title VII claims by ministers against their church necessarily require "secular authorities [to]…

See, e.g., Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 203 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that, in matters of church governance and administration, the govern ment shall not interfere); Bollard v. California Province of Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940 , 945 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that the “Free Exercise Clause restricts the government’s ability to intrude into ecclesiastical matters or to interfere with a church’s governance of its own affairs”); Combs v. C…

Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that "we cannot conceive how the federal judiciary could determine whether an employment decision concerning a minister was based on legitimate or illegitimate grounds without inserting ourselves into a realm where the Constitution forbids us to tread, the internal management of a church"). ¶ 30.

Id. at 345.

See Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists , 772 F.2d 1164, 1167-68 (4th Cir. 1985); s ee also Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church , 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (employment claims by ministers "necessarily intrude into church governance in a manner that would be inherently coercive, even if the alleg[ations] [] were purely nondoctrinal"); Abrams v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y , 715 N.E.2d 798, 803 (Ill.

See Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists , 772 F.2d 1164, 1167-68 (4th Cir. 1985); s ee also Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church , 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (employment claims by ministers "necessarily intrude into church governance in a manner that would be inherently coercive, even if the alleg[ations] [] were purely nondoctrinal"); Abrams v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y , 715 N.E.2d 798, 803 (Ill.

Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, supra, 344 U.S. at 116 , 73 S.Ct. at 154 , 97 L.Ed. at 136 , where the Supreme Court had stated that religious organizations must have the “power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government,” the court in McClure concluded ( 460 F.2d at 560 ): “We find that the application of the provisions of Title VII to the employment relationship existing between The Salvation Army and Mrs. McClure, a…

The Fifth Circuit has likewise observed, “In this highly sensitive constitutional area only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation.” Combs v Central Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F3d 343, 346 (5th Cir 1999) (cleaned up).

The Fifth Circuit likewise observes, “In this highly sensitive constitutional area, only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation.” Combs v Central Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F3d 343, 346 (5th Cir 1999) (quotation omitted).

Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999)).

Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir.1999)).

See also Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of PA 1970, No 100, 384 Mich 82, 105 ; 180 NW2d 265 (1970). 11 Scalise, supra at 14-15 , citing Good News Club v Milford Central School, 533 US 98, 106 ; 121 S Ct 2093 ; 150 L Ed 2d 151 (2001). 12 Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602, 612-613 ; 91 S Ct 2105 ; 29 L Ed 2d 745 (1971). 13 Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205, 220 ; 92 S Ct 1526 ; 32 L Ed 2d 15 (1972); Sherbert v Verner, 374 US 398, 402 ; 83 S Ct 1790 ; 10 L Ed 2d 965 (1963); Assem…

Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir.1999) ("[W]e cannot conceive how the federal judiciary could determine whether an employment decision concerning a minister was based on legitimate or illegitimate grounds without inserting ourselves into a realm where the Constitution forbids us to tread, the internal management of a church.”). 8 .

Ed. 2d 533 (1979); Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[i]n short, we cannot conceive how the *654 federal judiciary could determine whether an employment decision concerning a minister was based on legitimate or illegitimate grounds without inserting ourselves into a realm where the Constitution forbids us to tread, the internal management of a church”).

The court concluded that “[the] fundamental right of churches to be free from government interference in their internal management and administration has not been affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith and the demise of Sherbert,” id. at 350, and in so holding, stated, *766 We ... disagree with Reverend Combs’s argument that McClure is no longer good law because it relied on the “compelling state interest” test rejected by the Supreme Court in Smith .

See Bryce, 289 F.3d at 656 (agreeing with other circuit courts that "ministerial exception” analysis under Free Exercise Clause cases survives Smith) (citing Roman Catholic Diocese, 213 F.3d at 800 ; Gellington, 203 F.3d at 1302-04 ; Combs, 173 F.3d at 348-50; Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d at 461-63 ).

Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir.1999) (finding that a court cannot decide whether a ministerial employment decision was based on legitimate grounds without unconstitutionally interfering with the internal management of the church); Bell v. Presbyterian Church, 126 F.3d 328 , 333 (4th Cir.1997) (stating that decisions about the "nature, extent, administration, and termination of a religious ministry [fall] within the ecclesia…

Catholic Charities misinterprets these cases, which simply held the ministerial exception to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 survived Smith. ( Gellington, supra, 203 F.3d at pp. 1302-1304; Combs, supra, 173 F.3d at pp. 347-350.) The ministerial exception exempts from the coverage of various employment laws the employment relationships between religious institutions and their ministers or clergy. "`As a general rule, if the employee's primary duties consist of teach…

The Fourth Circuit cited the following cases as upholding the Ministerial Exception after the decision in Smith: Gellington, 203 F.3d at 1302-04 ; Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 347-50 (5th Cir.1999); Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d 455, 461-63 (D.C.Cir.1996).

See id. at 345 .

See, e.g., Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conf. of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 1999); Catholic Univ., 83 F.3d 455 ; Young v. Northern Ill.

See Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 348-49 (5th Cir. 1999).

See Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 (quoting McClure, 460 F.2d at 560 ); Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169 .

See Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 (quoting McClure, 460 F.2d at 560 ); Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169 .

See Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 (quoting McClure, 460 F.2d at 560 ); Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169 .

See Geary, 7 F.3d at 330 (noting that some courts have refused to allow even a limited pretext inquiry “when the employee who challenges an employment decision is a member of the clergy”) (citing Scharon, 929 F.2d at 363 ); see also Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that a clergy member’s pregnancy discrimination claim against her church was barred by the Free Exercise Clause).

See Combs, 173 F.3d at 350 .

See also Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 348-349 (5th Cir. 1999); Schmoll v. Chapman Univ., 70 Cal. App. 4th 1434, 1436, 1438-1440 (1999); Van Osdol v. Vogt, 908 P.2d 1122, 1129, 1132-1133, 1134 (Colo. 1996); Newport Church of the Nazarene v. Hensley, 161 Or.

See Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir.1999).