A federal judge in Washington state has ruled that Christian aid organization World Vision unlawfully discriminated against a woman in a same-sex marriage by rescinding a job offer for a customer service position.
District Judge James Robart concluded in an order of 47 pages on November 28, the organization’s “policy” of recognizing marriage between a man and a woman is considered discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Robart’s order no. This is not a final decision in the case but means that the matter would be resolved. at trial to determine damages. World Vision’s lawyers said they were considering next steps.
It is one of the first cases in the country to address the religious fallout of the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Bostock v. Clayton County, where the court ruled that Title VII applied to gender identity and sexual orientation. Title VII provides an exemption for religious employers must hire based on their beliefsand federal courts have also established the ministerial exceptionwhich protects religious organizations from lawsuits over the hiring and firing of religious leaders.
This year, the World Vision case has seen some twists and turns, reflecting the justices’ attempt to navigate a new area of law, according to lawyers watching from the outside. Robart initially ruled in favor of World Vision this summer before overturning his own decision and siding with the plaintiff, Aubry McMahon.
“The fact that the court wavered here showed that this is a delicate issue. Other courts would react differently,” said John Melcon, an attorney at Sherman & Howard who handles religious employment cases and is a former law clerk on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “This particular opinion is lengthy overall, but the legal analysis is quite short.”
In 2010, three World Vision employees continued the organization under Title VII after being dismissed for their lack of belief in the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. World Vision won that case, but in 2023, a case involving sexual orientation proves thornier for federal courts than the Trinity doctrine.
In this case, both parties agree on what happened: World Vision, whose American branch is a $1.4 billion organization, extended a job offer to Aubry McMahon to become a customer service representative interfacing with donors. McMahon shared that she was married to a woman, prompting World Vision’s human resources office to explain its position on the matter and withdraw the job offer.
World Vision has written standards of conduct to “clarify expectations and help applicants/employees decide whether or not (World Vision) is the right place to serve the Lord.” The standards say that biblical sexuality is expressed “only within the framework of faithful marriage between one man and one woman.” The organization has a history here: In 2014, it briefly announced that it would hire people in same-sex marriages before reverse position two days later.
“I think every Christian organization will continue to address this sensitive issue,” said its president Richard Stearns. said at the time. “The board will continue to discuss this issue at many future board meetings.”
After World Vision rescinded his 2021 job offer, McMahon filed a lawsuit, alleging discrimination under Title VII.
In June of this year, Robart ruled in favor of World Vision, citing the doctrine of church autonomy, according to which religious organizations are protected from government interference in their internal decisions. But McMahon requested a review.
The judge later reversed his own decision, acknowledging that he had “erred” in applying the doctrine of church autonomy to a non-ministerial employee. World Vision argued that she would have been a “ministerial” employee and would have participated in the organization’s ministerial work, with the job description including praying with donors. Robart disagreed.
“Applying the ministerial exception to the primarily administrative customer service representative position would extend the exception beyond its intended scope, erasing any distinction between roles with simple religious components and those with “key” ministerial responsibilities. “, he wrote.
He concluded: “Upon reconsideration, the court recognized that Ms. McMahon suffered an adverse employment action based on an apparently discriminatory employer policy. »
Constitutional lawyer Carl Esbeck said a judge can correct his decisions until the court loses jurisdiction on appeal.
“What happened here is certainly unusual, but within a proper civil procedure,” Esbeck said of the judge overturning his own orders.
If the case ends up in the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over that district court, Melcon feels optimistic for World Vision. The Ninth Circuit has a recent and promising record in religious exercise cases, he noted, issuing a major decision in favor of the Community of Christian Athletes this year, after the organization was denied access to public schools on the grounds that it violated non-discrimination policies.
In another case last week, a federal district court in Texas spoke out in favor from a religious business owner, Braidwood Management, regarding these same civil rights issues under Boston. The court said Braidwood had federal religious freedom protections not to hire people in same-sex marriages.
A case more similar to World Vision’s is further before the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals: Billiards c. Diocese of Charlotte. A Catholic school did not renew a teacher’s contract after he publicly announced his intention to enter into a same-sex marriage. As in the World Vision case, the employee argued that he was not fulfilling the school’s religious mission in his job and therefore the school was not receiving the religious exemptions it would normally receive. The Fourth Circuit heard arguments in this case this fall and will issue a decision at any time.
“These questions about the intersection of religious freedom and nondiscrimination law still need to be resolved by the courts of appeals and, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court,” Melcon said.
