Search News


Browse Archives

News

Religious Freedom or Bias?

December 20, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Geneva College, a Christian college in Pennsylvania, is suing the state for refusing to include its jobs -- which have religious requirements -- in a database of available positions.

In a complaint filed Friday in U.S. district court , lawyers with the Center for Law & Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund charge that in the state’s failure to provide employment and recruiting services for positions with religious criteria, the government is denying faith-based organizations their First Amendment rights. The lawyers argue that the First Amendment, along with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, affirm the right of a religious institution to hire employees on the basis of faith.

“The thrust of it is the idea that the First Amendment provides the right of religious employers to hire people that share their religious beliefs. In this case, the state and the federal government are trying to coerce religious employers like Geneva College to forgo that right in order to participate in this job placement program,” said Timothy Tracey, a lawyer for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

The case surrounds Pennsylvania’s administration of the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which funds and assists state efforts to provide employment and job training services. The act includes a stipulation that programs receiving federal assistance must comply with a nondiscrimination provision that expressly prohibits religious discrimination and does not exempt religious institutions. According to the complaint, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry informed Geneva College in 2004 that the department was “precluded from listing a job opening that would limit the applicant pool to members of one faith” on the agency’s CareerLink job database. In 2005, Geneva College administrators were told that they could not include the word “Christian” in job listings, except for jobs with “bona fide” religious requirements (such as to be a priest, one must be Roman Catholic).

Geneva, a Christian college governed by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, requires all new hires to "demonstrate a credible Christian commitment." According to the complaint, "The inability of an applicant to articulate a personal faith commitment to Jesus Christ and be supportive of a Reformed worldview will have a direct impact on employment consideration.'"

The main defendants identified in the complaint are the secretaries for the U.S. and Pennsylvania labor departments. Multiple calls to the public relations office at the U.S. Department of Labor were not returned Tuesday, and Barry Ciccocioppo, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, said the agency had not yet been served the complaint. He added that he could not comment on pending litigation.

Geneva College’s press office, meanwhile, referred all comment to Tracey with the Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University, said that a 2004 Supreme Court decision finding that while the government has the ability to extend government benefits to faith-based institutions, it does not have the obligation to do so on their terms, will likely present the biggest barrier to the plaintiffs’ case. In Locke v. Davey, a case involving the state of Washington’s Promise Scholarship, which provided funds to students to attend accredited public or private universities in-state but restricted the monies from going toward preparatory programs for the ministry, the court determined 7-2 that, as Tuttle said, “There may be good reasons for the government to treat religious organizations differently, and it can do so without violating the constitution.”

“The government, under current establishment clause law, is allowed to include religious organizations under federal funding programs. But the constitution doesn’t require that they be included, or included with full protections for the ability to hire people based on religion," Tuttle said.

At the same time, Tuttle said the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of the early 1990s, which has since been struck down for states but not for the federal government, might prove to be the plaintiffs’ best bet in court. If a court rules that the act applies, and Geneva College could demonstrate that the restriction imposes a significant burden on its expression of religious beliefs, the onus would be shifted to the government to demonstrate why the restriction would represent a “compelling public interest.”

In addition to Geneva College, the Association of Faith-Based Organizations, which includes Geneva among its more than 30 members, is also listed as a plaintiff. Tracey said that some of the members of the association are Christian colleges and universities, though he did not elaborate.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Religious Freedom or Bias?

  • Posted by pete , professor of biology at north country community college on December 20, 2006 at 9:46am EST
  • It's often instructive, when accusations of religious discrimination are made, to substitute "atheism" for whatever belief is supposedly under attack and see how that would play out. I've found that running this thought experiment provides clarity in sorting out the rights and wrongs, and confirms the wisdom of maintaining a high wall between church and state. Every time a fundamentalist howls he is making my case.

  • Sensible Questions for PA and Geneva
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , AVP for Scholarhsip and Grants at Indiana Wesleyan University on December 20, 2006 at 11:45am EST
  • Dear Elizabeth,
    Thank you for this concise and balanced look at Geneva's hiring concerns. I find the case a bit curious on both sides of the issue. Geneva is a strong liberal college and has attractive hiring points that should create a notable applicant pool. They also have access to the amazing headquarters of the CCCU, a 102-member Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (which also has another 80 or so affiliates). In short--they seem to have a strong position for hires. On the other hand, the state (and nation) is at a time of educational crisis. Nearly all indicators point to a decline in collegiate performance, access and entrance. Although religious colleges only make up around 10% of all students--that 10% is rather significant in a time of cut budgets. It appears that the state would want to help any accredited institution. This is especially true in PA, with so many private colleges. And considering the state's founding, it seems especially curious. On the other side, as noted earlier, Geneva must be arguing on principle and not so much out of need. I'm writing from Indiana where the state and private sector have had great relations. We seem collectively to realize that the biggest winners in collaboration are the students. At the federal level, the decision to award federal aid to students attending privates seems to imply a willingness to honor personal preference and to work together. Also, is the state of PA discriminating against Christians in the work place (tax payers) if it does not list jobs at Christian universities that they might not only be interested in, but need in a time of cutbacks elsewhere. Also, the "bona fide" provision seems counter intuitive, or at the least it supports Geneva's case instead of the state's. This situation is obviously much larger than what we can glean from your summary, but it does prompt us to think through the ramifications of the case and also the reasons for pushing for a resolution. JP

  • Posted by kgotthardt on December 20, 2006 at 3:30pm EST
  • Purely from a hiring standpoint, how does one measure the ability to “demonstrate a credible Christian commitment” among applicants? And if this is a criteria for hiring, does that also mean one might be fired for not doing so while on the job? I'm rather curious what kinds of jobs these are and how they are evaluated internally.

  • Rules
  • Posted by Kenatius on December 21, 2006 at 10:25am EST
  • I have pasted the complete text of the employers agreement for use of the "Career Link" system in Pennsylvania. Just for informational purposes.............

    "When clicking on the 'Submit' button at the bottom of the page you are verifying that you have read and understand the following information:

    Your registration to the Pennsylvania CareerLink System is an assurance that you have read the following items and NONE are applicable to your business. Involvement in any of the activities listed below is a direct violation of eligibility requirements and is subject to penalties and sanctions allowable under the law, including removal of registration privileges, immediate cancellation of CareerLink services and possible referral of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and/or the Office of Attorney General.

    An employer IS NOT eligible to register on the Pennsylvania CareerLink System, if it requires any monetary investment from a job seeker, charges a fee to the job seeker or attempts to fill a position involved in a job dispute.
    An employer MAY NOT make commercial use of the system or information from the system in commerce, marketing, advertising or publicity.
    An employer MAY NOT use the Pennsylvania CareerLink System to recruit self-employed or sub-contracted individuals. All listed job openings must be W-2 reported positions.
    An employer MAY NOT use the System solely to build a database of job seekers. Posted job openings must be for valid openings.
    An employer MAY NOT use the System to discriminate against any job applicants. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (43 P.S. §§ 951, et seq.) provides that it is illegal for an employer or employment agency to print, or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated a statement, advertisement, or publication or to use an employment application that expresses, directly or indirectly, a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination as to sex, age, non-related handicap or disability, the use of a guide or support animal because of the blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user, race, religious creed, ancestry, color or national origin, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification."

  • Posted by Marvin McConoughey on December 29, 2006 at 7:35pm EST
  • Is the government using public tax dollars to provide the recruitment and employment service? If so, then it should not be allowing religious discrimination.

    In the interests of consistency, perhaps the college should require all student applicants to demonstrate "a credible Christian commitment." Establishing consistent, valid, and reliable criteria should be an interesting exercise.