Spencer v. World Vision, Inc.
2011 WL 208356, 633 F.3d 723 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An entity qualifies for Title VII's exemption for religious organizations under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a) if it is organized for a religious purpose, is engaged primarily in carrying out that religious purpose, holds itself out to the public as a religious organization, and does not engage primarily in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.
Facts:
- World Vision, Inc. is a large, non-profit, self-described 'Christian humanitarian organization' that works to address poverty and injustice worldwide.
- As a condition of employment, World Vision requires all staff to agree to its Statement of Faith, which includes belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.
- Sylvia Spencer, Ted Youngberg, and Vicki Hulse were employed by World Vision in secular roles, including facilities upkeep, purchasing and scheduling, and administrative assistance.
- When hired, all three employees affirmed their agreement with World Vision's Statement of Faith.
- In 2006, World Vision learned that Spencer, Youngberg, and Hulse no longer believed in the Trinity, a core tenet of the organization's faith statement.
- World Vision terminated the three employees because their religious beliefs were no longer compatible with the organization's required Statement of Faith.
- World Vision is not affiliated with any specific church or denomination and provides humanitarian aid to people regardless of their faith, without requiring participation in religious activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Sylvia Spencer, Ted Youngberg, and Vicki Hulse sued their former employer, World Vision, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- The plaintiffs alleged religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
- World Vision filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court converted into a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for World Vision, ruling that it was a religious organization exempt from Title VII's ban on religious discrimination.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an initial opinion, after which the plaintiffs (appellants) filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied as the court issued this amended opinion.
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 a Christian humanitarian organization, World Vision, Inc., qualify as a 'religious corporation, association, ... or society' under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a), thereby exempting it from Title VII's prohibition on religious discrimination in employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. World Vision, Inc. qualifies for the exemption under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a) from Title VII’s general prohibition against religious discrimination. A majority of the panel holds that an entity is eligible for the exemption if it is organized for a religious purpose, is engaged primarily in carrying out that religious purpose, holds itself out to the public as a religious entity, and does not primarily exchange goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts. The full reasoning for this holding is detailed in the separate concurring opinions of Judge O'Scannlain and Judge Kleinfeld.
Concurring - O'Scannlain, J.
Yes. World Vision is a religious organization exempt from Title VII. Prior circuit precedent requiring a weighing of 'all significant religious and secular characteristics' is constitutionally problematic, as it forces secular courts to define what is 'religious.' A better test for a nonprofit entity is whether it: 1) is organized for a self-identified religious purpose, 2) is engaged in activity consistent with that purpose, and 3) holds itself out to the public as religious. World Vision meets this test: its foundational documents state a clear religious purpose, its humanitarian work is a direct expression of that purpose, and it overtly identifies as a Christian organization in its branding and hiring practices. This approach rightly avoids discriminating against parachurch organizations that are not formally tied to a specific denomination.
Concurring - Kleinfeld, J.
Yes. World Vision qualifies for the exemption, but Judge O'Scannlain's test is too broad and Judge Berzon's dissent is too narrow. A better test adds a fourth, crucial element: whether the entity 'does not engage primarily or substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.' This provides an objective way to distinguish a genuinely religious organization motivated by faith from a commercial enterprise that merely has a religious affiliation. Since World Vision gives its services away charitably rather than selling them at market value, it demonstrates that its purpose is religious, not pecuniary, and thus qualifies for the exemption.
Dissenting - Berzon, J.
No. World Vision does not qualify for the exemption and should be subject to Title VII's prohibition on religious discrimination. The majority invents a new, overly broad test that abandons controlling Ninth Circuit precedent from Townley and Kamehameha Schools, which correctly held that the exemption is narrow and applies only to churches or entities with 'extremely close ties to organized religion.' The plain meaning of the statute's terms ('religious corporation, association, or society') historically refers to groups organized for worship and religious instruction, not humanitarian charities. World Vision's primary activities are secular; its religious character stems from its employees' motivations, not the work itself. This decision transforms a narrow exemption into a broad one, undermining Title VII's purpose of protecting employees' religious freedom.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of the Title VII religious exemption in the Ninth Circuit, creating a new, more deferential test for faith-based organizations. It moves away from the prior, fact-intensive balancing test that scrutinized an organization's ties to organized religion and the nature of its activities. The new precedent makes it easier for parachurch and humanitarian organizations to claim the exemption based on their self-identification, stated purpose, and non-commercial nature. This strengthens the autonomy of such organizations to maintain a religiously uniform workforce but potentially weakens the religious freedom protections for employees in jobs with no religious function.
