Corporation Of Presiding Bishop Of The Church Of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

483 U.S. 327 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mayson (P) worked at the Gymnasium for 16 years as an assistant building engineer and then as building engineer. He was discharged in 1981 because he failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples. He was fired because he was not a member of the Church according to their standards involving church attendance, tithing, and abstinence from coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco. P and others purporting to represent a class of plaintiffs brought an action against the Corporation of Presiding Bishop (Ds) alleging, discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of § 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ds moved to dismiss this claim on the ground that § 702 shields them from liability. Ps contended that if construed to allow religious employers to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring for nonreligious jobs, § 702 violates the Establishment Clause. The court concluded that Ps' case involves nonreligious activity. Applying the three-part test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court first held that § 702 has the permissible secular purpose of 'assuring that the government remains neutral and does not meddle in religious affairs by interfering with the decision-making process in religions . . . .' The court concluded that § 702 fails the second part of the Lemon test because the provision has the primary effect of advancing religion. Section 702 singles out religious entities for a benefit, rather than benefiting a broad grouping of which religious organizations are only a part; § 702 is not supported by long historical tradition; and § 702 burdens the free exercise rights of employees of religious institutions who work in nonreligious jobs. The court found that § 702 impermissibly sponsors religious organizations by granting them 'an exclusive authorization to engage in conduct which can directly and immediately advance religious tenets and practices,' the court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied to secular activity. The court entered summary judgment in favor of Ps and ordered him reinstated with back pay. The court vacated its judgment so that the United States could intervene to defend the constitutionality of § 702. After further briefing and argument, the court affirmed its prior determination and reentered a final judgment for Ps.