In an issue of first impression, the Michigan Court of Appeals held the "ministerial exception" may be applied to WPA claims involving a religious institution and a "ministerial employee," and the trial court properly granted summary disposition as to plaintiff's WPA claim in favor of the defendants.
Also, based on the record, the court held the trial court did not err in determining consideration of the relevant factors established plaintiff was a ministerial employee and defendants were entitled to summary disposition of her CRA claim.
Plaintiff, a teacher, alleged violations of the CRA and the WPA after her contract was not renewed for the 2005-2006 school year. Regarding the first factor used in determining if a plaintiff was a ministerial employee, the court found no error in the trial court's conclusion plaintiff's duties were primarily religious, despite the fact she taught four mathematics and two religion classes in her last year of teaching. She stated she incorporated her religious teachings into her mathematics lessons. As to the second factor, plaintiff's teaching of religion classes and her involvement in planning masses and preparing students for confirmation and reconciliation services clearly had religious significance. Concerning the third factor, the trial court found plaintiff's position was primarily religious because, as a teacher of religion, she was involved in proselytizing on behalf of the Church. The court agreed. As the trial court noted, educating and indoctrinating the children was important to and furthered the purposes of the Church. The court held the fourth factor presented a closer question, given plaintiff did not assume a liturgical role within the entire congregation. However, she was intimately involved in liturgical planning of worship services, as well as confirmation and reconciliation services, for students. Further, her role as a religion teacher involved propagation of defendants' doctrine to students, which included guidance in worship services and rituals. The court noted some claims by ministerial employees are not necessarily foreclosed by the ministerial exception, but none of those exceptions applied because plaintiff's WPA claim alleged retaliation by termination.
The case represents a further setback for employees and demonstrates that the judiciary charged with interpreting the law is just as important as the legislature in shaping employee rights and expectations, as well as the hurdles for employees in pursuing those expectations when they are created.
Weishuhn v. Catholic Diocese of Lansing. (Michigan Court of Appeals) No. 07-72277 (Shapiro, J., joined by Meter and Borrello, JJ.)
