Ministerial Exception Applies With Force in Michigan

On January 26, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in Weishuhn v. Catholic Diocese of Lansing, sent a clear message that the ministerial exception applies, in Michigan, to a broad set of employees and a broad set of claims.

First, the Court of Appeals held that a mathematics teacher, albeit one with significant non-secular responsibilities, is a ministerial employee. Importantly, the Court stated, mindful of the overlap between secular and non-secular teaching responsibilities, that " teaching 'secular' classes is not necessarily 'purely secular' in the context of religious schools," because teachers in religious schools often incorporate religion into their teachings. (As an aside, would Courts allow parties to contract this? "While teaching at X, you will be considered a ministerial employee as understood by _____ v _____.")

Second, the Court applied the exception to whistleblower claims. Michigan now joins Florida as the only state doing so. The Court emphatically closed by saying "[t]ermination by a religious institution is an absolutely protected action under the First Amendment, regardless of the reason for doing so." The Court did acknowledge that the ministerial exception does not foreclose non-termination causes of action (e.g. independent tort claims and contract actions)

Click here for a copy of the Court's opinion.

TWO Days Later??!! -- SJ Affirmed

On January 12, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued Upton v. Phoenix Composite Solutions in which it affirmed a trial court's decision granting an employer's motion to summarily dispose of a former-employee's whistleblower claim. Specifically, the Court agreed with the trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to establish that "there existed a causal connection between the protected activity and the discharge," despite her demonstration that she was fired a mere two days after the Department of Labor issued a ruling on her behalf regarding unpaid overtime. In doing so, the Court reiterated that "a temporal relationship, standing alone, does not demonstrate a causal connection between the protected activity and any adverse employment action . . . a plaintiff must show something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action."

Click here for a copy of the Court's decision.

Click here for a copy of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act.