|
The Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation and religion. However, nonprofit religious
organizations and schools are generally exempt from the Minnesota Human
Rights Act’s sexual orientation provisions. But the Minnesota
Human Rights Act also states that in such cases, employees who are
involved in “secular business activities unrelated to the employer's
religious or educational mission” would still remain protected. (Minn.
Stat. 363A.26(2)). Additionally, religious entities which operate on a
for-profit basis can discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual
orientation, but only in the rare instance that a particular sexual
orientation is a "bona fide occupational qualification" for the position
in question. (Minn. Stat. 363A.20, subd.2).
In 2004, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued two seemingly
contradictory opinions attempting to address the application of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act’s "sexual orientation" provisions within the
context of a religious employer.
In Egan v. Hamline United Methodist Church (April 13, 2004),
the court ruled that a church’s dismissed choir director could not file
a sexual orientation discrimination claim because his role was
essentially ecclesiastical in nature, and therefore was not a “secular
business activity unrelated to the church's religious mission.” The
court's decision was based on the nature of the employee’s specific job.
Months later, a the court held in Thorson v. Billy Graham
Evangelical Association (October 19, 2004) that a long-time mail
room employee at the association also could not file a sexual
orientation discrimination claim over her dismissal when her employer
learned she was a lesbian. This time, the court looked to the nature of
the employer, not that of the employee’s job. Holding that the Billy
Graham Evangelical Association was a pervasively religious employer, the
court concluded that no "secular business activity" occurred there and
that no employee there would be protected from sexual orientation
discrimination.
Despite two opportunities for the Minnesota Court of Appeals to
address the issue, it remains an open question about whether the
proverbial janitor at a church may (Thorson) or may not (Egan) be fired
because of sexual orientation.
This information is not intended to constitute legal advice; if you have
questions about your employment situation, you should contact an
attorney familiar with employment issues. For more information, contact the OutFront
Minnesota Legal
Program at
.
|
