Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos
(1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exempts religious organizations from Title VII's prohibition on religious discrimination in employment, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when applied to the secular, nonprofit activities of a religious organization.
Facts:
- The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CPB) and the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (COP) are religious entities associated with the Mormon Church.
- These entities operated the Deseret Gymnasium, a nonprofit facility open to the public.
- Arthur Mayson worked at the Gymnasium for approximately 16 years, ultimately serving as the building engineer.
- Mayson's duties as building engineer were secular in nature and not related to the religious tenets or rituals of the Church.
- In 1981, Mayson was discharged from his position because he failed to qualify for a 'temple recommend,' a certificate verifying he was a member of the Church in good standing.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Mayson sued the CPB and COP in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The defendants (CPB and COP) moved to dismiss, arguing they were shielded from liability by the religious employer exemption in Section 702 of the Act.
- The District Court determined that the Gymnasium was a secular, nonreligious activity.
- The District Court held that Section 702, as applied to the secular activities of a religious organization, violated the Establishment Clause and was therefore unconstitutional.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Mayson.
- The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the federal statute, but the District Court reaffirmed its judgment.
- The CPB, COP, and the United States, as appellants, brought a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exempts religious organizations from the prohibition against religious discrimination in employment, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when applied to an employee performing secular duties at a nonprofit facility operated by the religious organization?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. Applying the Section 702 exemption to the secular nonprofit activities of religious organizations does not violate the Establishment Clause. Under the three-part Lemon test, the statute is constitutional. First, it has a permissible secular purpose: to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions by avoiding the need for courts to determine which activities are religious. Second, its primary effect does not advance religion; it does not mean the government itself has advanced religion, but rather it permissibly allows the church to advance its own religious purposes. Third, the statute avoids, rather than causes, excessive government entanglement with religion by preventing intrusive inquiries into religious beliefs and practices.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
I concur in the judgment. The decision should be limited to the context of a nonprofit organization. While an exemption from Title VII burdens employees' religious freedom, forcing a case-by-case analysis of whether an activity is 'religious' or 'secular' would create excessive government entanglement and chill the free exercise of religion. The nonprofit nature of the Gymnasium makes a claim of religious purpose plausible. Therefore, a categorical exemption for nonprofit activities is an appropriate balance between the competing interests of individual religious liberty and the autonomy of religious organizations.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
I concur in the judgment. I agree with Justice O'Connor's reasoning, particularly that the majority's distinction between the government 'allowing' religion to advance versus actively advancing it is unhelpful. The question of the constitutionality of the §702 exemption as applied to for-profit activities of religious organizations remains open.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
I concur in the judgment. The Court's application of the Lemon test is problematic; the proper inquiry is my 'endorsement test,' which asks whether a statute's purpose is to endorse religion and whether it actually conveys a message of endorsement. Government action lifting a regulatory burden does have the effect of advancing religion. The key is to distinguish permissible accommodations from unjustifiable aid. Here, because there is a high probability that a religious organization's nonprofit activity is part of its religious mission, an objective observer would perceive the exemption as a permissible accommodation, not an endorsement. However, the constitutionality of applying this exemption to for-profit enterprises remains an open question.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the protection afforded to religious employers under Title VII, confirming that the exemption covers secular as well as religious activities, at least within a nonprofit context. The Court prioritized the value of avoiding government entanglement in religious affairs over the interest of an individual employee in being free from religious discrimination in this setting. The influential concurring opinions by Justices Brennan and O'Connor, however, crucially limit the majority's holding by emphasizing the nonprofit status of the employer. This created a lasting distinction and left open the significant question of whether the § 702 exemption is constitutional when applied to the for-profit, commercial activities of religious organizations, a question courts would grapple with for decades.
Unlock the full brief for Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos