Editorial: Teacher tests separation of church and state

The following blog entry is in regards to Suzy Parker’s editorial “Teacher tests separation of church and state” for USA Today.

Throughout the history of the United States there have been many issues regarding church and state. The protections provided in the Bill of Rights give citizens the right to freedom of religion. One common misconception is that the Constitution lays out the separation of church and state.  This is not true, but instead an interpretation of the First Amendment.  What happens when the church denies Constitutional rights of citizens? Suzy Parker’s editorial for USA Today poses this question.

Parker’s editorial responds to the Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran: Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case focuses on the institutions right to fire a disabled employee who they claim could no longer perform her duties. Cheryl Perich, a teacher at Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran in Michigan, was diagnosed with narcolepsy, a sleep disorder that causes excessive sleepiness. She missed significant time from school while on approved medical leave. She was later warned that if she missed more than six months of duty that she would be terminated. Perich received clearance from her doctor to return to work but was denied by the church to teach. According to the article, the church cited her “insubordination and disruptive behavior” and that by threatening to take legal action she damaged her relationship with the school “beyond repair.” Prior to this formal reaction, Perich was considered a secular employee of the institution, with no religious ties. It was not until her termination that she was given a clerical title. The question, as described by Parker, is under what employee status the school is determining Constitutional rights.

Courts have extended “ministerial exceptions” to religious affiliates whom they chose to become clergymen. The same exceptions do not apply to employees who work in secular positions for those same institutions. This case is based upon the fine line between the powers governing church and state and the consequences of crossing that line. Parker has done well to research the case and reference information regarding the Constitution. Her credibility lies in reporting the facts.  The very idea that the Supreme Court has to grapple with the “fine line of church and state” makes it worthy of commentary.

Parker claims that private or non-religious institutions would be in violation of the law if they were in this same situation. She also claims that the church does have the right to choose who teaches religion, and points out that Perich could have continued her duties as a secular member or lay teacher without being in violation of her contract.

Parker’s resolutions are to remove the religious titles and restore Perich’s secular status.  She further supports that there should be a financial settlement between the parties, whereby Perich is restored lost income. Her stand is summarized; the secular argument does not breach religious walls and instead makes the issue civil and not Constitutional.

I agree with Parker; this decision does not need to include religion. The decision is a simple matter of rightful employment.  This decision would include all citizens who are part of the workforce. It is important for the court to disregard the title change and not include the religious institution label while making their judgment.