A federal appeals court recently upheld the rights of a religious school to employ teachers aligned with it on matters of faith. Reversing a poor lower court ruling, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment-based “ministerial exception” protected a Catholic high school in Charlotte, North Carolina, from state interference. ECFA, which weighed in through a court brief, celebrated this victory on constitutional grounds, but we hope future challenges will be resolved by a straightforward reading of civil rights law.

Billard v. Diocese of Charlotte centers on an English and drama teacher who taught at Charlotte Catholic for more than a decade and knew that the school required its teachers to uphold its core religious values. However, when the school declined to employ him as a substitute teacher after he announced a same-sex relationship on social media in 2014, Billard and the ACLU accused the school and its diocese of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

While a federal district court sided with Billard and the ACLU, the panel of appellate judges unanimously disagreed. Finding that “faith infused CCHS’s classes–and not only the expressly religious ones,” the court ruled that the ministerial exception clearly shielded the school’s employment decisions with its teachers.

“The ministerial exception remains just that–an exception,” Judge Pamela Harris wrote. “But when the exception does apply, it unambiguously commands that we ‘stay out.’”

However, one judge on the panel dissented with the majority’s approach to the case. Judge Robert King, a Clinton appointee, agreed with the effect of the judgment–a victory for the school. However, he would have avoided a ruling relying on the ministerial exception by taking on directly the Title VII statutory anti-discrimination arguments.

“Put simply, I would dispose of Charlotte Catholic’s appeal by ruling only on Title VII’s religious exemption, in that a “straightforward reading” of § 702 of Title VII bars Billard’s discrimination claim,” he declared.

ECFA agrees. Our court brief—made in partnership with twenty other church and ministry organizations—recognized the importance of constitutional and RFRA arguments but zeroed in on the lower court’s incorrect understanding of the statute at hand. We noted that the appellate judges “need look no further than the text of Title VII itself to resolve this appeal.”

Our brief explained that the plain text of Title VII and relevant case law shows that when ministries make employment decisions based on religious beliefs, observance, or practice, that fact overrules other provisions in that section of the law — including its sex discrimination prohibition. The brief argues specifically that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock ruling, which incorporated sexual orientation and gender identity into the term “sex” under Title VII, does nothing to diminish the straightforward understanding of that law’s religious exemption. In fact, it underscores its importance.

“At the core of what the 702 exemption protects is a religious organization’s preference for employees who are fellow believers.” we and our partnering organizations wrote.

This isn’t a blanket exemption in all matters for religious organizations, but it does do what was intended by Congress. It preserves the ability of faith-based organizations to employ individuals rightly aligned with the religious identity that makes them who they are.

While ECFA hopes another opportunity will arise to clarify the importance of Title VII’s religious exemption, the victory in Charlotte Catholic is still most welcome. Luke Goodrich of Becket, which represented the school, rightly stated, “This is a victory for people of all faiths who cherish the freedom to pass on their faith to the next generation.”