The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) recently co-authored a brief filed in federal court defending the religious liberty of one of its charter members, World Vision. The global Christian relief and development organization is under fire for requiring its employees to be aligned with it on a matter of faith—the biblical covenant of marriage.

In 2021, World Vision offered Aubry McMahon a customer service representative post that would work with donors. However, after receiving the job offer, McMahon disclosed that she was married to a woman. Finding that this suggested noncompliance with the ministry’s belief that sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, World Vision rescinded the offer, and McMahon proceeded to file a sex discrimination lawsuit.

A federal district court judge in Seattle originally ruled in favor of World Vision in 2023, but shortly thereafter, he reversed course. The judge suggested that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act did not protect religious organizations from claims that were not premised as religious discrimination. He also ruled that deferring to the “ministerial exception” in this case “would expand the exception beyond its intended scope, erasing any distinction between roles with mere religious components and those with ‘key’ ministerial responsibilities.” World Vision then appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reflecting on the ruling, Brad Jacob, a Regent University law professor, told WORLD in December, “The judge has decided this isn’t about sharing World Vision’s convictions about sexual morality, it’s about your being discriminated against because you are a gay person. And on that characterization, I think, turns everything.”

ECFA and co-authors of its brief—including more than twenty other church and ministry organizations—similarly realize the importance of this incorrect determination by the judge. Even though the judge also erred in his conclusions about the constitutional “ministerial exception” in this case, we focused on his faulty logic dismissing religious liberty protections in Title VII and Washington state law.

Our brief explains 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—regardless of how a challenger attempts to characterize his or her claim.

“Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the application of section 702 turns not on the claims asserted but rather on whether the challenged employment action is based on the alignment of the employer’s and employee’s religious beliefs or conduct,” we state.

Of particular importance for this case, the brief points out that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock ruling, which incorporated sexual orientation and gender identity into the term “sex” under Title VII, did nothing to diminish the straightforward understanding of that law’s religious exemption. In fact, the high court underscored the significance of Congress creating “an express statutory exception for religious organizations” in its majority opinion.

“The district court’s conclusion that section 702 cannot apply to ‘claims . . . premised on sex and sexual orientation discrimination’… would preclude the exemption from applying to any sex discrimination claim arising under Bostock, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s assurance to the contrary,” states our World Vision filing.

The Tite VII religious exemption isn’t a blanket exception in all matters for religious organizations, but it should do what Congress intended—preserve the ability of faith-based organizations to employ individuals rightly aligned with the religious identity that makes them who they are.

Notably, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a religious school in another Title VII employment lawsuit earlier this year based on the “ministerial exception.” In that case, ECFA also jointly filed a brief arguing for a straightforward reading of the law. We will similarly monitor this court battle and be a voice for religious liberty.