« Hard Times for Christian Aid Groups in Afghanistan and Somalia | Main | North Korea to Release Christian Activist »
August 23, 2010
Court: World Vision can Hire, Fire Based on Faith
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the humanitarian group is a religious organization under the law.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling this afternoon allowing the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision to base its hiring decisions on matters of religious belief.
Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain authored the three-judge panel’s majority opinion, which declares World Vision a “religious organization” and therefore exempt from the rules on hiring practices that Congress set down in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, mainly because it is a nonprofit entity which self-identifies as religious.
“This is a significant victory for World Vision’s religious hiring rights,” said Dean Owen, World Vision’s director of media relations. “The right of faith-based organizations to hire people who are co-religionists, who are of their own faith, has been law in this country for nearly 50 years.”
Three former World Vision employees, Silvia Spencer, Ted Youngberg, and Vicki Hulse, sued after World Vision fired them in 2006 for disagreeing with central tenets of the organization’s Statement of Faith. As O’Scannlain notes, everyone involved agreed that the three employees were fired for religious reasons. The question was whether World Vision qualified for the religious exemption to the Civil Rights Act, which normally prohibits any organization from hiring or firing based on religious beliefs.
The former employees asserted that both law and legal precedent limited “religious organizations” to “churches, synagogues, and the like.” The Ninth Circuit, who produced some of the precedents they pointed to, disagreed.
“If Congress had intended to restrict the exemption to ‘[c]hurches, and entities similar to churches’ it could have said so,” Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion said. “Because Congress did not, some religious corporations, associations, and societies that are not churches must fall within the exemption.“
The majority opinion refused to address certain thorny questions, such as whether or not World Vision’s humanitarian work is an inherently religious activity. Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion said that it would be “constitutionally troublesome” for the court to attempt to decide what sort of activity is religious and what is not. When the employees alleged that World Vision is not a religious group because it offers aid to people regardless of their own religion, O’Scannalin chose to accept World Vision’s own assertion that “providing humanitarian aid to all in need, regardless of religious belief, is a tenet of its faith.”
Judge O’Scannlain held that a “nonprofit entity” qualifies as religious if it “1) is organized for a self-identified religious purpose… 2) is engaged in activity consistent with, and in furtherance of, those religious purposes, and 3) holds itself out to the public as religious.” World Vision, O’Scannlain ruled, meets these criteria.
“Our Christian faith has been the foundation of our work since we were established in 1950,” Owen said to CT this afternoon, “and we believe that the hiring policy of the US offices of World Vision…is vital to our integrity as part of our mission.”
In a concurring opinion, Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld agreed that World Vision qualified for the religious exemption but disagreed with one of O’Scannlain’s criteria. Kleinfeld argued that O’Scannlain’s focus on groups with nonprofit status could hurt religious groups too small to incorporate and might allow secular nonprofits with “church affiliations” to discriminate unfairly.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Marsha S. Berzon held that World Vision’s humanitarian focus leaves it in the cold as far as the Civil Rights Act is concerned: “Congress used the terms ‘religious corporation, association . . . or society’ as they were commonly understood: to describe a church or other group organized for worship, religious study, or the dissemination of religious doctrine.”
World Vision is not sure if the other side plans to appeal, but sees the Ninth Circuit decision as very significant for groups across the faith spectrum.
“This is a very significant victory, not just for World Vision but for any religious organization—Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever—that hires people of the same faith,” Owen said.
Comments
Glad to read that the judges understood that because World Vision is engaged in humanitarian work that does not mean its activities are purely secular in nature. Humanitarian work, what Wesley called "social holiness" done in the name of Christ and secular humanitarian enterprises have different motivations and different ideas as to what the human being needs in terms of aid.
Posted By: John H. Guthrie | August 23, 2010 10:23 PM
I am disgusted with this decision. So, if I don't accept that Jesus Christ was anything other than a man & I believe that we are all creations of an incredible force, I am not worthy to do humanitarian work for World Vision? If Jesus could & was coming back, I guarantee he would show you how wrong you are & how badly you have misinterpreted his teachings. JESUS NEVER TURNED ANYONE AWAY, YOU IDIOTS! Obviously, you must have received a special message from the dead, because that's what he is-dead! No one is coming back to save you. We all have to save ourselves & help others to lead as fulfilling a life as possible. That's it. Religion is what Jesus didn't want, nor did he want to be glorified. Man created Christianity & every other religion. Obviously, BECAUSE IT'S TEARING ALL OF US APART! Stop trying to convert the human race. Help people in the name of love & leave Jesus & religion out of it!
Posted By: Elizabeth | August 24, 2010 9:49 AM
In other words, it is possible for Christians and Christian organizations to be successful in court. It depends on how strong the case is from a legal point of view. So, those who do, please stop the cursing about how judges are agents of the devil. Thank you.
Posted By: Andrew | August 24, 2010 4:13 PM
I understand the court's opinion and I am glad to hear it. I wonder though, if World Vision might consider working with other organazations that are not Christian based? The article didn't seem to indicate one way or another on that. Thanks Doug Lass
Posted By: Doug Lass | August 25, 2010 10:37 AM
Doug,
World Vision does in fact work with other organizations that are not Christian. World Vision has worked with the Conrad Hilton foundation for many years to provide water to those in need of it in West Africa.
Posted By: Sam | August 25, 2010 4:38 PM
It is good that the court upheld this right. However, what is bad is that World Vision fired people for disagreeing with an un-Biblical concept that happens to be a tenet of their statement of faith. The question was over the idea of God being three in one or simply one, as Jesus stated. The plaintiffs should have asked if World Vision could prove God is a trinity in court. That would have been highly interesting. But, the court isn't interested in all that, so they upheld WV's right to fire people who don't believe like they do, right or wrong. Wrong, in this case.
Posted By: Dubay Oyay | September 6, 2010 10:03 PM
Fine by me, but I hope they loose federal funding over it. You can't reap the benefits AND curtail the laws.
PS: I am also amazed that nobody can see the danger in this ruling. How many groups can now fire a Christian for simply being Christian? Too many can't seem to grasp the concept that "religious freedom" applies to more than just themselves. If you give yourself the freedom to fire others based on their belief, you give them the freedom to fire you for yours.
Posted By: Jake | September 16, 2010 11:53 AM
I'm not a fan of laws that prohibit discrimination in private businesses or churches.
Today we have judges probing into religious organizations to see if they ran afoul of the law in their hiring practices. If religious groups are not allowed to discriminate based on religion then they will cease to exist. Applying anti-discrimination laws that have religion as a protected class against religious institutions is just crazy.
If a Christian church hires a choir leader, is it discrimination to require him to lead Christian hymns in church? If a Christian church is not allowed to ask a church secretary if he is a Christian, must the picture of Jesus come down in the church office so as to not create a discriminatory work environment?
I believe in equality before the law. But I don't believe in forced equality in the private sphere.
If all discrimination has to end, then why isn't the government choosing our spouses for us? Choosing a spouse is certainly discriminatory.
Why not make brain surgeons a protected class? That way, when a hospital is hiring brain surgeons, it won't be allowed to ask if one is a brain
surgeon and can just go ahead and hire a cab driver to do brain surgery!
Posted By: Joe | October 4, 2010 10:12 PM
8th Amendment, "Congress shall make no law regarding AN establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It's not a religious issue it is Constitutional. Same with any broadcast facility. If a Liberal radio station were to hire a Conservative, that Conservative would have to agree with that stations beliefs and message. If not then they can not adequately convey the same beliefs and practices of the station and are then unable to fulfill their goals and should be fired. World Vision is a Christian Organization protected under the first amendment and has the right to terminate an employee based on religious disagreement. That is free exercise. Non-Christians will disagree with it saying it is hypocritical since it is supposedly a religion of acceptance, but that couldn't be less true about any religion. Being a religion meaning believing something someone else doesn't and that inherently means separation.
Constitution win!
Posted By: Harry Allen | December 7, 2010 3:45 PM