Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Issue 

Hosanna v. EEOC was a major landmark case regarding employment discrimination by a religious institution. The primary issue in the case was to determine the proper procedure that should be followed and critical elements that should be used to provide evidence of the case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The law protects religious institutions from government’s interference with their activities under the establishment clause in the law. 

Rule 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was used to rule in the case. The critical elements of establishing a primafacie case include belonging to protected class, possession of appropriate qualification, rejection despite the availability of a job, and employer’s decision to contract other persons to fill the position. The employer is then given the opportunity to show that his actions were not discriminatory. The complainant completes the process by providing evidence that the employer’s actions were intentional and pretentious. 

Analysis 

The Supreme Court’s arrived at a unanimous ruling using the 3-prong –burden-shifting rule. Foremost, the plaintiff provided the four elements of evidence to show that she belonged to the protected classes of people in the constitution. The plaintiff developed a disability; therefore, she automatically qualified for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The second element is proved for individual qualification of the job position under contention. The plaintiff’s qualifications to work at Hosanna was undisputable because she possessed required educational qualification and had more than four years of experience. Despite the plaintiff’s suitability for the job, she was denied the opportunity to resume her work. Lastly, her position was given to another teacher without her knowledge. Hosanna failed to prove that its actions were nondiscriminatory because the plaintiff was not just a minister she was also involved in secular work. Therefore, the Church was not insulated against Title VII. Lastly, the plaintiff showed that the employer fired her on the pretest of insubordination and threat against the employer. 

Conclusion 

However, the court did not issue a ruling in favor of either the defendant or plaintiff. The court sent the case back to the District court requiring the proceedings to continue with the trial.