In a recent legal development, a federal judge in Washington State has determined that World Vision, a Christian humanitarian aid organization, unlawfully discriminated against a woman in a same-sex marriage by rescinding a job offer. This decision raises questions about the intersection of nondiscrimination statutes and religious freedom, a challenge many courts across the country are currently grappling with.
District Judge James Robart, in a 47-page order on November 28, found that World Vision’s policy of recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman constitutes discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. While this ruling is not final, it sets the stage for a trial to determine damages, with World Vision’s attorneys considering their next steps.
This case is among the first to address the religious implications following the 2020 US Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which extended Title VII protection to gender identity and sexual orientation. Title VII does have exemptions for religious employers based on their beliefs, and federal courts recognize the ministerial exception, shielding religious organizations from certain lawsuits.
The legal journey of the World Vision case has been marked by twists and turns, indicating the complexities involved in navigating this evolving area of law. The court initially ruled in favor of World Vision, but later reversed the decision, siding with the plaintiff, Aubry McMahon, who alleged discrimination under Title VII.
World Vision’s stance on biblical sexuality, expressed in its standards of conduct, played a pivotal role in the case. The organization has a history of addressing this sensitive issue, having briefly allowed the hiring of individuals in same-sex marriages in 2014 before reversing the decision.
The judge’s reconsideration focused on the application of the ministerial exception to a non-ministerial employee like McMahon. While World Vision argued that her role would involve ministry work, including prayer with donors, the judge disagreed, stating that applying the ministerial exception to an administrative position would go beyond its intended scope.
Constitutional lawyer Carl Esbeck noted the unusual nature of the judge reversing his own orders but emphasized its procedural validity. If the case proceeds to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, there is optimism for World Vision, given the circuit’s recent favorable rulings in religious exercise cases.
Similar cases in other circuits, such as Billard v. Diocese of Charlotte, highlight the ongoing challenge of balancing religious liberty and nondiscrimination law. As these legal questions continue to unfold, the appellate courts, and possibly the US Supreme Court, will play a crucial role in shaping the future of this intersection.
