Latter-Day Saints and Religious Discrimination: A Legal Perspective

Introduction

In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.

Because Arthur Frank Mason worked for Deseret Gymnasium, an

organization which had him doing tasks such as maintaining equipment, ordering supplies, and working on plumbing and electrical systems; tasks which “are not even tangentially related to any conceivable religious belief or ritual of the church or church administration[2],” it was determined he would be entitled to remedy under Title VII[3]. This remedy would come in the form of back pay with interest from the date of his dismissal plus contributions to his pension and he be rehired back to his old position.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (henceforth referred to as The Church) appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds both Beehive Clothing Mills and the Deseret Gymnasium are owned by The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of The Church and have administrative input from The Corporation of the President of The Church. Any tasks done while working for these businesses carried with them an intent to further the church’s work and the spreading of the mormon faith in general, and should be exempt from Title VII based on 42 U.S.C § 2000e-1 which states that Title VII “shall not apply... to a religious corporation respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation… of its activities."

The Supreme Court, while applying the same three pronged test, decided unanimously § 702 did in fact pass the test for determining whether a state action violated the Establishment Clause[4]. It is of the opinions of both authors of this paper The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling and in their reasoning when deciding on the standing of the case and the legality of § 702.

Literature Review
Ofer Raban, an Associate Professor of Law wrote, “Conflicts of Rights: When the Federal Constitution Restricts Civil Liberties”. He claims civil rights can and will conflict at times and states “such conflicts constitute a particularly troublesome form of judicial review, because they may limit the ability of the democratic process to produce civil freedoms” Raban references the Amos case many times in his article, arguing the conflicts of Amos’ right to equal protection versus The Church’s right of free exercise and equal protection versus the Establishment Clause. He ……………...

Rex Lee, President of Brigham Young University, gave a speech at a symposium on religiously affiliated law schools in 1995. In his speech, he strongly believes religious schools (and businesses) have the right to discriminate in their hiring practices. He said “to date, the most authoritative judicial statement of the religious rights of a community is found in Justice Brennan's concurring opinion, joined by Justice Marshall, in Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos”. Without this right, he said, “our ability to make a unique contribution to our students, our faculty, and to legal education as a whole will be seriously impaired”.

In 2008, Emma Haas wrote “The Supreme Court's Misstep: Revisiting the Holding of Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos to Formulate an Appropriate Definition of ‘Nonprofit’ Activity”. She wrote the court’s broad view of the § 702 exemption was too broad and needed to be re-examined. Her primary focus was on Justices Brennan and Marshall’s argument that all nonprofit secular activities of religious organizations did not need to be examined on a case-by-case basis; however, they did not go into depth about the definition of “nonprofit”, they simply used this

Analysis

The Supreme Court based its ruling on the application of Lemon’s three pronged test.

When applied to this case, The Supreme Court considered the Lemon test as it pertains to this case as follows:
Is there a tie between the religious organization and the activity?
Is there substantial connection between the activity and the religious organization’s tenets or matters of church administration?
Is there a strong relationship between the nature of the job the employee is performing and the religious rituals or tenets of the religious organization or matters of church administration?

With respect to the first portion of the test, it was determined both Deseret Gymnasium and Beehive Clothing Mills had an intimate[2] connection between the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and the Corporation of the President of the Church, because The Church appoints members of the governing board of both companies and neither has a financial existence outside of and without The Church. They exist to provide services for members of The

Church.

When considering Frank Mason and Deseret Gymnasium and the second portion of the test, The Supreme Court found that if The Court were to attempt to determine the connection between activities performed on the job and the religious tenets of The Church, or more specifically if The Court were to rule on whether the tasks Frank Mason was responsible for completing while at work were considered “religious tasks” they would be determining for The Church what they could count as “religious tasks”, which they cannot do as the state can neither “advance nor inhibit religion[1].

While the state must not advance religion, The Supreme Court held they had not advanced religion through their own activities and influence and had only allowed The Church to advance its religion by not intervening. By allowing religious organizations to discriminate based upon religion, churches were allowed to advance their own religion, but the state was less allowed to become entangled in religion.

Carl Esbeck argues against strict use of the Lemon test, specifically the Effect prong saying[5] “The Court refused to find the exemption violated the effect prong because there was "no persuasive evidence in the record . . .that the Church's ability to propagate its religious doctrine through the Gymnasium [operated by the Church] is any greater now than it was prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Esbeck does not consider the fact The Court is unconcerned with this as they are not worried about The Church’s ability to “propagate its’ own religious doctrine” because there is no greater entanglement when the state refuses to intervene by defining “religious tasks” and if left alone, The Church’s goal is to further their own religion and the state has not directly influenced this.

Jesse Choper uses Amos to argue[6] “The Court has held that not only is government permitted to act for religious purposes, but at least under certain circumstances it must act for religious purposes by granting an exemption from an ordinary civil regulation to people because, and only because, they hold a particular religious belief.” Jesse fails to consider, though, The Court states rather than acting for religious purposes, it must choose not to act to define “religious tasks” in order to prevent restricting or infringing upon the religious freedoms outlined in Title VII.

Conclusion

Citations

[1] 411 U.S. 192; 93 S. Ct. 1463; 36 L. Ed. 2d 151; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 85. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2017/04/17.
[2] Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos. Supreme Court Case Files Collection. Box 138. Powell Papers. Lewis F. Powell Jr. Archives, Washington & Lee University School of Law, Virginia. Web. Date Accessed: 2017/04/17.
[3] “Amos v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church, 618 F. Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985)” JUSTIA. Justia Corporate Center. Web. Date Accessed: 2017/04/17.
[4] "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/86-179. Accessed 16 Apr. 2017.
[5] Carl H. Esbeck, The Lemon Test: Should It Be Retained, Reformulate or Rejected?, 4 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 513 (1990)
[6] Jesse Choper, Church, State and the Supreme Court: Current Controversy, 29 Ariz. L. Rev. 551 (1987), Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/667