Most faith-based nonprofit employers (“Employers”) are pleased by the United States Supreme Court’s recent opinions strengthening legal protections for religious employers. Given the alternative possibility, that reaction is quite understandable. Employers may have already begun to update their policies and practices to ensure that the organization does not inadvertently waive these protections. Now is the time to do a more thorough audit of employment practices so that Employers comply with the many applicable state and federal laws.

The American ideal of freedom encompasses the protection of individuals’ rights to live out a variety of faiths and world views, according to each person’s conscience. Even with diversity in our animating beliefs, we are united in commitment to building a society that respects the humanity and dignity of its members. Acts of service—such as feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and visiting the sick—honor our collective belief in the dignity of each person. These acts can be thought of as “the public good,” whether a person’s conception of the “good” is rooted in theology, in personal conscience, or in civic virtue. When faith-based organizations work to bring about the public good, the greater community can and should support these activities. Even those who disagree with the theological motivation behind an act of service should appreciate the objective good being pursued.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court interpreted whether employers covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) are prohibited from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as based on biological sex. The Court’s majority held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based employment discrimination does extend to sexual orientation and gender identity. None of the employers in the decision were faith-based nonprofits. Accordingly, the Court did not directly address religious employers covered by Title VII whose sincerely-held religious beliefs regarding human sexuality conflict with the expanded definition.

In general, state and federal law prohibit discrimination based on religion and immutable characteristics such as race, sex, color, and national origin. But under the ministerial exception, churches, religious schools, and other qualifying religious organizations are exempt from these laws in connection with the hiring and firing of their ministerial employees. This protection applies only to employment decisions involving a distinct class of employees who are considered ministers. While the term “minister” encompasses more than just a church’s ordained clergy, the precise scope of the term is not clearly defined. There are, however, some guidelines that Catholic non-profits can follow to determine which of their employees might qualify as ministers.

While an apostolate’s noncompliance could harm the organization’s ability to operate or attract donors, the more spiritually significant concern is that such noncompliance could actually rise to the level of scandal, which could distract from – or even prevent – the witness of the apostolate and its staff or volunteers through whatever good work they do. Faithful completion of the most mundane tasks, even legal compliance, is the stuff of saints!