February 18, 2026

‍

What is the ministerial exception?  

What is the ministerial exception? At its root, the  

ministerial exception . . . protects the right of religious organizations to decide who their “ministers” will be, thereby shielding them from liability under state and federal employment discrimination laws in connection with the hiring and firing of employees who fall within the exception. In other words, the ministerial exception gives religious organizations autonomy to hire and fire key religious personnel and protects them from employment discrimination claims on the basis of religion, race, sex, disability, age, etc., in connection with those decisions.

Why is the ministerial exception important for religious organizations today? As stated above, this crucial protection allows religious organizations to make employment decisions regarding their ministers, free from the interference of secular laws including federal and state “nondiscrimination” laws that require employers not to discriminate on the basis of certain classes (often including religion, sexual orientation, and “gender identity”). Without the protections of the ministerial exception, religious organizations would be forced to choose their ministers based on secular laws and not solely on the internal decisions of the organization.

While Napa Legal has published several resources on the subject in the past, it is time for a comprehensive summary of the doctrine as well as an update on the caselaw affecting application of the ministerial exception in 2026.

‍

The Supreme Court First Formally Recognizes the Ministerial Exception: Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC

While America has a long tradition of allowing religious organizations to choose their ministers free from government interference, the ministerial exception was first formally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  

In Hosanna-Tabor, a Lutheran school had a system where it had two types of teachers: “called” teachers and “lay” or “contract” teachers. “Called” teachers had to be members of the Lutheran congregation and received theological training. A “called” teacher received the title of “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”  

In Hosanna-Tabor, a “called” teacher who missed an extended amount of work time due to illness was terminated. The terminated teacher filed an action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the anti-discrimination statute was inapplicable because the teacher was a minister for purposes of the First Amendment. The First Amendment “precludes application of [anti-discrimination] legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.” The fact that the firing was allegedly retaliatory was irrelevant, because the choice of ministers is a matter of “internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” So when the ministerial exception applies, courts lack the authority to look into the reason for the termination. Courts simply cannot become involved in a religious organization’s choice of ministers.  

Hosanna-Tabor leaves the scope of the ministerial exception largely unanswered

While Hosanna-Tabor recognized the existence of the ministerial exception, the Court hesitated to define a minister with any specificity. The Court indicated certain criteria that could be considered in determining if an employee is a minister—the formal title given to the employee, the substance reflected in that title, the use of the title by the employee, and the important religious functions performed by the employee. But because Hosanna-Tabor involved an employee who received theological training and held herself out as a religious “minister,” it was a fairly easy case and the Court declined “to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister.”

Clarification and expansion of the ministerial exception: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

The U.S. Supreme Court has still never adopted a “rigid formula,” but it did add clarity to the ministerial exception in the 2020 case of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru. In this case, the employees were two teachers at Catholic schools. Their employment agreements set out the school’s Catholic faith commitment, “imposed commitments regarding religious instruction, worship, and personal modeling of the faith,” and included these factors as criteria for continued employment and evaluation.

In a fact pattern similar to Hosanna-Tabor, both teachers were terminated and filed suit against their employers alleging discrimination—this time under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court ruled against the teachers in reliance on the ministerial exception as articulated in Hosanna-Tabor. But the teachers argued successfully on appeal that their case was distinct from Hosanna-Tabor because they did not have the title of “minister,” had very limited religious training, and did not hold themselves out publicly as religious leaders.  

Our Lady of Guadalupe allowed the U.S. Supreme Court to make two important points about the ministerial exception.

First, the Court clarified that the ministerial exception does not apply only to churches. Religious institutions other than churches are still entitled to independence in matters of faith and doctrine. Therefore, religious institutions that are not churches are still entitled to ministerial exception protections in “employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions.”  

Second, the Court noted that the decision in Hosanna-Tabor relied largely on the teacher’s title of minister and the fact that she held herself out as a religious minister. In Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Court clarified that an employee’s title is not what qualifies her as a minister. “What matters is what an employee does. Implicit in the Hosanna-Tabor decision was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of a private religious school’s mission.” Because the teachers in Our Lady of Guadalupe “performed vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith,” they had core religious responsibilities sufficient to define them as “ministers” for purposes of the ministerial exception.

‍

The ministerial exception after Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe

The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the ministerial exception since Our Lady of Guadalupe. So religious organizations still do not have a “rigid formula” to apply in determining whether their employees are ministers. But what we do know is  

• Religious organizations that are not churches still have ministerial exception protections in employment decisions regarding ministers;

• A minister does not have to be an ordained clergyman or someone with a formal ministerial title; and

• In determining whether an employee is a minister, courts will look at whether an employee performs vital religious duties, such as providing education in the faith, leading prayer, and helping people to live out their religious faith.

Decisions that come from lower courts do not provide binding precedent that can be relied on across the nation. Two recent cases, however, show important trends in the way lower courts are applying the ministerial exception.

Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School

In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided an important case called Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School. In Billard, a teacher filed a lawsuit after his contract as a substitute teacher was not renewed. The Catholic school did not renew the contract after Billard publicly announced his "plans to marry his same-sex partner.” Additionally, Billard openly advocated for positions concerning marriage that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is important to note that Billard did not teach religious subjects, either in his previous role as a full-time teacher or as a substitute teacher. Billard taught English and drama. Therefore, “Billard did not have a responsibility to educate his students explicitly in the Catholic faith.” If asked questions about Catholic doctrine, Billard was supposed to direct students to religious authorities.  

Despite Billard’s lack of explicit religious teaching obligations, "religion infuses daily life at the school.” Teachers  

• begin each class with a short prayer,  

• accompany students to Mass,  

• are expected to maintain a Catholic environment at the school,  

• must teach subjects in a manner “agreeable with Catholic thought,”

• are expected to contribute to a school atmosphere of Catholic faith, and

• must abide by and implement the mission statements of the school and the Diocese.

The school’s decision not to renew Billard’s substitute teacher contract was based on the conclusion that his actions “violated the Diocese’s policy against engaging in conduct contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic faith.”

Applying the ministerial exception precedent in Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe, the court found that Charlotte Catholic High School is a community of faith that teaches its students to serve as Christians in the world; the school’s statement of beliefs calls on all community members to “model and integrate the teachings of Jesus in all areas of conduct.” All teachers were expected to model faith in the teaching of all subjects, not just religious ones. Because the integration of religious faith into every class was part of the school’s religious character, the court concluded that the work of all teachers at Charlotte Catholic High School constitutes “the performance of ‘vital religious duties’ that implicate the ministerial exception.”

Besides the expansion of the ministerial exception to include teachers of nonreligious subjects at a religious school, Billard provides another legal point worthy of consideration. In the initial litigation of Billard, Charlotte Catholic High School did not argue and therefore waived its ministerial exception rights, focusing on other legal arguments. But the Fourth Circuit noted that the “ministerial exception does not protect the church alone; it also confines the state and its civil courts to their proper roles.” In other words, the government may not be involved in decisions involving religious leadership disputes concerning ministers, even if the parties want the court to weigh in or do not make a ministerial exception argument!  

McMahon v. World Vision  

In 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided an important case called McMahon v. World Vision. World Vision is a religious organization, a “Christian ministry dedicated to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ through humanitarian outreach to children and families around the world who are poor and underserved.” The court notes that Aubry McMahon "is a Christian, openly gay person in a same-sex marriage. McMahon and her wife are ‘huge advocates’ for ‘the LGBTQ community.’”

McMahon applied for a job as a customer service representative (CSR) at World Vision, a job that does not require any religious education or training. World Vision extended a job offer to McMahon but after “learning that McMahon was in a same-sex marriage, World Vision revoked its job offer” because McMahon’s lifestyle choice violates the Christian beliefs and practices that World Vision requires of all its employees.

McMahon filed suit under both federal law and Washington’s state anti-discrimination laws (WLAD), alleging that World Vision’s employment policy “facially discriminated based on sex, sexual orientation, and marital status in violation of Title VII and the WLAD.” The district court eventually rejected all of World Vision’s claims under Title VII, WLAD, and the First Amendment, ruling in favor of McMahon’s discrimination claims.  

World Vision appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court decision. The Ninth Circuit wrote that  

the ministerial exception bars McMahon’s employment discrimination claims because the record shows that CSRs perform key religious functions central to World Vision’s mission. CSRs are responsible for effectively communicating World Vision’s worldwide ministries and projects to donors and supporters. CSRs engage with donors in prayer and give them the opportunity to join World Vision’s religious mission through financial contributions.

The opinion concluded that these parts of the job are “vital religious duties” that are an essential part of World Vision’s religious mission. Therefore, the ministerial exception applies to employment decisions related to World Vision’s customer service representatives.

Practical Takeaways

As we said above, Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe provide the only binding, nationwide precedent concerning the ministerial exception. The Billard and World Vision cases only set precedent in those circuits, not nationwide. So what practical takeaways do we have about how courts will apply the ministerial exception?  

From the cases above, we can piece together some guidelines about how religious organizations should articulate the mission and purpose of their organizations, as well as the duties of their employees, in order to create the strongest ministerial exception protections possible.

• If a job is considered ministerial, religious organizations are free to make employment decisions about the hiring and firing of those employees, regardless of “nondiscrimination” laws. Choices about ministers must be free from the influence of secular laws and courts.

• In deciding whether a position qualifies as ministerial, courts do not merely look at the employee’s title, but rather at what the employee does. The key consideration is whether the employee’s role includes “vital religious duties,” such as leading prayer and worship, teaching religion, and bearing witness to the faith of the organization.

• Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe both held that religion teachers at religious schools were ministers for purposes of the ministerial exception.

• Applying the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Fourth Circuit in Billard held that a substitute teacher in a Catholic school was a minister and the Ninth Circuit in World Vision found that customer service representatives were ministers.

• The decisions in Billard and World Vision were based not only on the duties of the employees themselves, but on the thoroughly religious character of the organizations in question. The Billard case emphasized that Charlotte Catholic High School was an emphatically Catholic school, seeking to create a religious environment in all of its classrooms and programs, regardless of what subject was being taught. Similarly, World Vision focused on the fact that the organization sought to spread and preach the Gospel in every interaction between its employees and the people they serve.

With all this in mind, what should religious organizations do to ensure they take advantage of ministerial exception protections in their employment practices?

• It is important to structure the entire organization so that it has a thoroughly religious character. Everything from the organization’s corporate purpose and mission statement to its policies to the day-to-day atmosphere should articulate that the organization exists to live, spread, and witness to its religious faith.

• While job titles that sound ministerial are not the most important factor courts will look at when considering whether to apply the ministerial exception, titles still matter. Make sure your employees have job titles that reflect the religious character of their role. For example, as Napa Legal suggested in a previous resource, “a Catholic non-profit might consider changing the title of its ‘Vice President for External Relations’ to ‘Vice President for Catholic Outreach and Messaging.’  This change would be appropriate if the position required the employee to, for example, convey the organization’s Catholic faith and mission to outside organizations.”    

• Each employee should be tasked with “vital religious duties.” Teachers of secular subjects should be required to infuse religious faith into the teaching of subject. Customer/client-facing roles (like customer service representatives) should be trained to pray with, share, and witness to the faith in their professional interactions whenever possible and appropriate to do so. Every employee, from the CEO to the janitor, should be expected to pray regularly and provide a consistent witness of living the faith to everyone they encounter during their work.

• Organizations should consider whether there should be certain religious training requirements as a prerequisite for a position. For example, you might require a course in catechesis and evangelization for all employees (including basic staff like janitors, receptionists, customer service representatives) as part of an effort to ensure that all your employees bear witness to the faith. Teachers or other similar roles might require further training in theology or other religious subjects. If your organization requires these credentials for certain positions, those credentials should be put in the prerequisite list in the job description.

• The “vital religious duties” expected of every employee should be in writing. Make sure that the employment handbook and employment contracts all include these religious functions. And the organization should provide periodic training to remind and inspire every employee to further the organization’s religious mission.

• Finally, make sure that all these safeguards are not merely part of your organization’s policies, job descriptions, and training manuals, but that your organization actually abides by them. Listing vital religious duties and religious education requirements is not helpful (and may actually be quite harmful) if you are not actually requiring these things of your employees.

‍

Conclusion

While we know that employees of religious organizations that have “vital religious duties” are considered ministers under current law, there is no clear test or explanation of exactly which employment positions are ministerial and which are not. But by infusing your organization and the physical workplace with a religious atmosphere, and by requiring employees to engage in vital religious duties such as regular prayer and witnessing to the faith at work, your organization can be afforded as much protection as possible under the doctrine of the ministerial exception.