Thursday, September 21, 2006

Two Decisions On Jurisdiction Over Religious Employment Disputes

Two cases involving the constitutional limits on federal court jurisdiction over employment decisions made by religious authorities were handed down this week:

In Vann v. Guildfield Missionary Baptist Church, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66947 (WD VA, Sept. 19, 2006), a Virginia federal district court permitted the minister of a church to proceed with his claim that his dismissal by the deacon of his church violated the church's bylaws. The bylaws provided for the minister's dismissal only by a vote of a majority of the church's members. The court said that since no member vote was ever taken, "the Church itself has never acted. Thus, I have subject matter jurisdiction to consider this case because the decision to fire Vann .... was not the decision of a religious entity or church. As a result, that decision is not constitutionally protected from judicial review."

Maruani v. AER Services, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66789 (D MN, Sept. 18, 2006), involved the dismissal of Leo Maruani , a shochet (kosher butcher), from the employ of AER Services, a commercial business that provides slaughtering services for companies that sell kosher meat products. He was dismissed after the rabbi supervising the plant in which he worked objected to the fact that Maruani was not leading a visibly pious life because he did not live within walking distance of an Orthodox synagogue.

The court dismissed Maruani's claim that he was discriminated against because of his religion in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He alleged that the supervising rabbis placed religious requirements upon him that they did not impose on other shochtim. The court held: "An examination of the gradations in the rules of Kashruth or severity with which the rabbis enforced those rules is precisely the type of religious-based claim the Court is forbidden from entertaining." However the court permitted Maruani to proceed with claims that the rabbis' religious objections were not the real reason for his dismissal, and that the real reasons violated Minnesota's Whistleblower Act and its Workers Compensation Act.