Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
First Amendment Bars Suit by Worker Against Zen Temple
VanDyke Says Ministerial Exception to Employment Discrimination Laws Applies Even to Menial Laborer
By Kimber Cooley, Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that the First Amendment protects a San Francisco Zen Buddhist temple from a discrimination suit by a former employee of the center—who performed mostly menial labor and was not involved in teaching or leadership—as he qualifies as a “minister.”
The dispute arose after plaintiff Alexander Behrend was terminated from his role with the temple after he sought accommodations for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Behrend asserts that the ministerial exception—exempting the employment relationship between a religious organization and its ministers from labor laws—does not apply to his work which was largely focused on janitorial and guest services tasks.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote the opinion affirming the judgment in favor of the temple by District Court Judge Jacqueline S. Corey of the Northern District of California following a successful motion for summary judgment. Judges Ryan D. Nelson and Gabriel P. Sanchez joined in the opinion.
Disability Claims
On March 17, 2021, Behrend filed a complaint asserting causes of action for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disability Act against the San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., the largest Sōtō Zen Buddhist temple in the U.S.
After a car accident left him without work due to physical and psychological disabilities, Behrend was accepted as a work practice apprentice (“WPA”) at the center. WPAs live at the facility and follow a strict schedule involving meditations and “work practice” involving cooking, dishwashing, cleaning, guest service tasks, and ceremonial jobs like ringing bells.
In 2018, Behrend was assigned to a maintenance crew but alleges that the work exacerbated his PTSD symptoms and, when he requested accommodation, the center ended his participation in the WPA program.
Corey granted the Center’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the ministerial exemption applies. She wrote:
“Mr. Behrend insists that applying the First Amendment here is at the outer edges (indeed, beyond the outer edges) of the ministerial exception. The Court disagrees….To illustrate, consider what Mr. Behrend is asking a court or jury to do: rule, in effect, that SF Zen Center must allow him to continue to practice and train in Soto Zen Buddhism as a resident at the Center. It is difficult to imagine a more direct interference with a religious institution’s constitutional right to decide matters of faith and doctrine than commanding it to continue to house and train a particular person in the practice of the faith.”
Ministerial Exemption
VanDyke noted that the ministerial exemption is grounded in both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and preserves the independent authority of a religious organization to select, supervise, and remove a minister without interference by governmental authorities.
The jurist was unpersuaded by Behrend’s contention that the exception only covers those with key roles in transmitting the faith to others. He wrote:
“Both our precedent and that of the Supreme Court proscribe a rule by which only those who are high up in a religious organization can qualify as ministers. This makes sense: if leadership was a requirement, cloistered nuns or monks might very well be disqualified….Since the purpose of the exception is to ensure a religious organization’s independence in matters of faith, doctrine, and government, surely it applies just as readily to those who perform vital, but not necessarily hierarchical, functions.”
He considered the role of a Catholic acolyte, whose job is to assist the priest at the altar, and reasoned:
“He has no role in leading the congregation and generally does not speak at all during Mass, let alone teach. But surely the ministerial exception allows a Catholic church to determine for itself who can and cannot serve at the altar.”
Applying the logic to the present case, he concluded:
“The Center’s WPA program, while perhaps not as familiar to many, is no less protected. Behrend was tasked with performing maintenance, kitchen, and guest services. But he was also responsible for assisting with rituals, participating in meditations and services, cleaning the temple, attending talks and classes, and performing…ceremonial tasks like ringing bells and cleaning altars. He lived and worked full time at the temple as a monk. While Behrend may not have taught and was not a part of the hierarchical leadership structure, he ‘performed vital religious duties’ as part of the Center’s WPA program.”
The case is Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., 23-15399.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company