Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos

1987-06-24

Headline: Religious nonprofits can lawfully prefer co-religionists for nonprofit jobs: Court upheld Title VII’s exemption allowing religious organizations to hire members for nonprofit activities, reversing lower court.

Holding: The Court held that applying Title VII’s religious-organization exemption to nonprofit, secular activities of religious groups does not violate the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

Real World Impact:

Allows religious nonprofits to require employees meet religious tests for nonprofit roles.
Reduces government intrusion into religious nonprofits' internal staffing decisions.
Leaves open whether for-profit religious activities get the same exemption.

Topics: religion and employment, religious hiring, First Amendment, nonprofit employers

Summary

Background

The dispute involves the Deseret Gymnasium, a nonprofit facility run by corporations tied to the Mormon Church, and an employee, Mr. Mayson, who was fired after failing to obtain a church "temple recommend." Mayson sued, arguing that the statutory exemption letting religious organizations hire on the basis of religion could not be applied to the Gymnasium’s secular, nonprofit activities under the First Amendment.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Congress acted with a permissible purpose and whether the exemption’s effect improperly advanced religion. It concluded Congress reasonably meant to avoid government interference in religious decision-making and that applying the exemption to nonprofit church activities does not mean the government itself is sponsoring religion. The Court found the exemption rationally related to that purpose and upheld it as applied to nonprofit activities.

Real world impact

The decision means many religious nonprofit organizations can lawfully prefer members when hiring for nonprofit roles, and courts should not automatically treat those nonprofit activities as government-advancing religion. The ruling leaves intact protections that reduce intrusive court inquiries into a church’s internal staffing choices. The opinion, however, is limited to nonprofit activities; the Court did not finally resolve whether the same rule applies to profit-making enterprises run by religious organizations.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices concurred in the judgment but emphasized different points. Justices Brennan and Marshall stressed a categorical nonprofit exemption to avoid chilling religion; Justice O'Connor agreed with the outcome but warned the for-profit question remains open; Justice Blackmun joined that view.