Page 1
Religious Group Not Liable for Denying Job on Ground Applicant Is Lesbian—Ninth Circuit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that World Vision, Inc., an international Christian organization that serves children in East Asia, comes under the “ministerial exception” to liability for employment discrimination in the case of a woman who was offered a job, but then told she would not be hired when it was determined she is engaged in a same-sex marriage.
Reversing a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Aubry McMahon, a three-judge panel said the job in question—that of a customer service representative (“CSR”)—entails religious duties, rendering the exception, grounded in the First Amendment, applicable.
The Office of California Attorney General last Oct. 28 joined with counterpart agencies in 20 states in filing an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance.
McMahon’s action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of the state of Washington.
Senior Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman authored the opinion, filed Tuesday. Joining in it were Judges Ronald M. Gould and Morgan B. Christen.
Tallman’s Opinion
Tallman wrote:
“We now hold 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. Because each of these ‘vital religious duties’…lies at the core of World Vision’s religious mission of ‘working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God,’ the ministerial exception applies to CSRs and bars McMahon’s claims.”
He noted that World Vision’s “Standards of Conduct” prohibits “sexual conduct outside the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Plaintiff’s Contention
McMahon, who is a Christian, argued that the duties of a CSR are primarily secular, to which Tallman responded:
“[T]hat a position has primarily administrative or secular job duties does not foreclose the possibility that the position qualifies under the ministerial exception.”
He continued:
“We also reject McMahon’s argument and the district court’s conclusion that religious job duties that are equally applicable to all World Vision employees carry diminished or no relevance in the ministerial exception analysis. True, all World Vision employees are expected to ‘bear witness to Jesus Christ’ through life, deed, word, and sign. Similarly, all employees, not just CSRs, are ‘invited and expected’ to attend a weekly ‘organization-wide chapel’ service. But the district court did not cite any authority for the proposition that a position is less likely to be central to a religious organization’s core mission if its religious duties are shared with general members of that organization.”
Exception Not Applicable
The senior judge added:
“Secretaries, accountants, and custodians at World Vision, despite having the same religious obligations to attend chapel and bear witness to Jesus Christ, would not qualify for the ministerial exception because, unlike CSRs, they are not charged with conveying the organization’s message to its donors—a role ‘vital’ to World Vision’s central mission.”
Tallman directed that on remand, summary judgment be entered in favor of World Vision.
The case is McMahon v. World Vision Inc., 24-3259.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company