On Thursday, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued fascinating majority and dissenting opinions in a case in which a Methodist minister claimed that his church violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act by forcing him into retirement because he had reached the age of 70. In Hankins v. Lyght (2nd Cir., Feb. 16, 2006), Judge Winter’s majority opinion rejected the district court’s application of a “ministerial exception” in ADEA cases. It held, instead, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now sets out the controlling standard. Under RFRA, the case should be dismissed if the application of the ADEA would place a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the church or its Bishop, unless it is shown that the ADEA furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive manner. The majority remanded the case to the district court for it to apply the RFRA standards to the facts. In the course of reaching its conclusion, the majority also clearly held that RFRA was constitutional as applied to the interpretation of federal statutes.
Judge Sotomayor’s dissent argued first that the church and Bishop Lyght had waived reliance on RFRA, and instead were relying only on the free exercise and establishment clauses. Second, the dissent argued that RFRA only applies to claims against the government, and does not apply in suits between private parties. Finally, Judge Sotomayor argued that Congress did not intend the ADEA to apply to the selection or dismissal of clergy by a religious body.
