The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled this week that the Christian aid organization World Vision has the freedom to hire people who share the organization’s beliefs for jobs that have “vital religious duties.” In World Vision, Inc. v. McMahon, a three-judge panel found that the ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws allowed World Vision to rescind a hiring offer to a woman because she is in a “same-sex marriage.” Since the woman would have acted as a “public voice” for the ministry in the position offered, the court cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent that religious organizations have the freedom to choose who will best reflect their beliefs for positions that directly support its “core mission.”

In 2021, Aubrey McMahon sued World Vision for rescinding her job offer as a customer service representative (CSR) after she disclosed she was in a “same-sex marriage.” Since World Vision holds to the biblical belief that sexuality should fall “solely within a faithful marriage between a man and a woman,” the ministry’s standards of conduct for its employees prohibits “sexual conduct outside the biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.” According to the court’s ruling, McMahon indicated during the interview process that she was “aligned” with the standards despite being “married” to a woman and having not yet disclosed that fact to World Vision. After receiving a formal job offer, McMahon then informed World Vision she was “married” to a woman when asking about maternity leave for herself, specifying she was the one pregnant and not her “wife.” McMahon then alleged World Vision’s rescission of the job offer was discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and marital status under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).

However, the court stated that World Vision proved its CSRs qualify for the ministerial exception because they play a “pivotal role” at the heart of World Vision’s mission by conveying the organization’s message to donors and supporters.

The ruling reads, “World Vision’s ‘core mission’ is to bear witness to Jesus Christ through acts of service, including support for children, those afflicted by conflict, and the poor, by partnering with churches, donors, and other members of the public through prayer and ministry. The CSRs’ responsibilities ‘lie at the very core of [World Vision’s] mission’ because CSRs are the organization’s ‘voice, face, and heart’—without the CSRs, World Vision would be severely hindered in pursuing its central religious mission.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Tallman, who authored the court’s opinion, stated the ministerial exception established by the U.S. Supreme Court applies to World Vision’s CSRs since they perform “vital religious duties,” and the exception “bars McMahon’s claims.” 

The decision reverses a lower court ruling that rejected World Vision’s ministerial defense stating CSR’s were not ministerial in nature. The lower court then sidestepped religion to apply “neutral principles” of employment law calling McMahon’s job offer rescission discriminatory. The Ninth Circuit noted the lower court “erred” by only looking at the position in the “abstract” and not in the context of World Vision’s central mission, where religious beliefs are central.

The ruling in this case may have implications for future Title VII cases involving religion-based employment decisions. Currently, Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University in a meritless Title VII lawsuit brought by Jonathan Zinski, a biological male, who informed the university after his 90-day probation period expired that he wanted to “transition” to “identify as female” and change his name to “Ellenor.” He was terminated for open violation of Liberty’s doctrinal statement regarding human sexuality and now alleges “sex discrimination.”

Liberty Counsel recently filed a brief to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Zinski v. Liberty University seeking dismissal of the lawsuit by arguing that Title VII, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious institutions like Liberty University to make employment decisions when those decisions are based on religion. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The ministerial exception under the First Amendment protects the freedom of religious organizations to choose who will convey their beliefs and carry out their mission. Employees cannot demand that faith-based employers abandon their religious beliefs. The law allows religious ministries to determine their religious beliefs and to require employees to act consistent with those beliefs.”