I’ve scanned the syllabus and through the factual background in the two cases here and I’m confused. Maybe you could help me understand.
In the case of Morrissey-Berru, I don’t understand the “ministerial exemption” application here. The Church said the reduction in contract from full-time to part-time and then terminating her the next year. Here is the part where I’m confused:
“In 2014, OLG asked Morrissey-Berru to move from a fulltime to a
part-time position, and the next year, the school declined to renew
her contract. She filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), received a right-to-sue letter, App. 169, and
then filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., claiming
that the school had demoted her and had failed to renew
her contract so that it could replace her with a younger
teacher. App. 168–169. The school maintains that it based
its decisions on classroom performance—specifically,
Morrissey-Berru’s difficulty in administering a new reading
and writing program, which had been introduced by the school’s new
principal as part of an effort to maintain accreditation and improve
the school’s academic program.”
How does poor “performance implementing a reading and writing program” fall under the ministerial exemption?
Now failure to uphold the morals of the religious entity? I see that. Failure to teach the tenants of the religoin as required? I see that. Failure to lead the class in appropriate religious observances as part of duties required? I see that.
Poor performance in implementing a new secular curriculum module? I can see that, based on performance. I don’t see it as qualifying under the ministerial exemption through.
Without the ministerial exemption, would that then cause the claims of age discrimination to be more closely examined? If so, would that be correct, especially as she claimed it was to hire a younger teacher (and yes younger teachers cost less).