Appeals Court Rules World Vision Has Right To Rescind Job Offer To Lesbian Applicant
In late 2020, Aubry McMahon applied for a remote customer service job with World Vision, a large evangelical humanitarian organization. Affirming she was aligned with World Vision’s Standards of Conduct, which prohibit, among other things, “sexual conduct outside the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman,” she did well in her interview and was extended a job offer.
Before she accepted, however, she had a quick question for them:
‘Hey there, I just have a quick question! My wife and I are expecting our first baby in March and I wanted to see if I would qualify for any time off since I’ll be a new employee? I will be the one having the baby so I just wanted to check to see if any time would be allowed off. If not, no worries, thanks so much!
Upon hearing she was involved in a lesbian relationship, (later revealed they conceived via sperm donor) World Vision withdrew the job offer and she in turn sued for discrimination.
While a federal judge initially ruled that they unlawfully discriminated against her, saying that their actions violated Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the three-panel judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, with the summary explaining:
The panel held that the district court erred by rejecting World Vision’s ministerial exception defense. The
ministerial exception bars McMahon’s employment discrimination claims because the record shows that CSRs perform key religious functions central to World Vision’s mission.
CSRs are responsible for effectively communicating World Vision’s worldwide ministries and projects to donors and supporters. CSRs engage with donors in prayer and give them the opportunity to join World Vision’s religious mission through financial contributions.
Because each of these “vital religious duties” lies at the core of World Vision’s religious mission of “working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God,” the ministerial exception applies to CSRs and bars McMahon’s claims.
Churchwest explains that the Ministerial Exception is a “legal doctrine that exempts religious organizations from certain employment laws, allowing them to select and govern their own ministers without government interference. This exception is based on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, and it recognizes that government intervention in ministerial employment decisions could be a violation of this right.”
Under the Ministerial Exception, anti-discrimination laws don’t necessarily apply to ministers or other employees who perform religious functions, which the court ruled McMahon would have been performing.
