Job Bias Laws Do Not Protect Teachers in Catholic Schools, Supreme Court Rules
Source: New York Times
Job Bias Laws Do Not Protect Teachers in Catholic Schools, Supreme Court Rules
The case was the court's latest consideration of the relationship between the government and religion.
By Adam Liptak
July 8, 2020, 10:10 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal employment discrimination laws do not apply to teachers whose duties include instruction in religion at schools run by churches.
The vote was 7 to 2, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent.
The court has been active in considering the relationship between church and state, generally siding with religious groups. It has ruled in recent years that a state must let a church participate in a government aid program, that a war memorial in the shape of a cross could remain on public property and that town boards may start their meetings with sectarian prayers. Last week, it said state programs that provide scholarships to students in private schools may not exclude religious schools.
The new cases considered another aspect of the church-and-state divide -- what role the government can play in regulating religious institutions.
The new cases -- Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267, and St. James School v. Darryl Biel, No. 19-348 -- were brought by teachers in Catholic schools in California who sued their employers for job discrimination.
{snip}
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-schools-supreme-court.html
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)Polybius
(15,467 posts)Second one of the day.
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)They get paid less.
mountain grammy
(26,644 posts)Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)as it means it wasn't ruled purely along party lines.
keithbvadu2
(36,880 posts)Yet the church protected their pederast priests for many decades.
Moving them around to prey on other children.
elleng
(131,075 posts)Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)
Bernardo de La Paz This message was self-deleted by its author.
caraher
(6,279 posts)The beginning of Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:
The full opinion
turbinetree
(24,713 posts)Polybius
(15,467 posts)I'm still surprised it was 7-2.
turbinetree
(24,713 posts)Yavin4
(35,445 posts)It's a sign of a backwards culture.
azureblue
(2,150 posts)Simple - the ruling makes it clear the school is a part of the church and as such can abide by church dogma. But OTOH that means the school now falls outside of federal discrimination guidelines so it cannot get federal money because it is an extension of the church. Can't have it both ways