What is the ministerial exception? It's a constitutional doctrine, rooted in the Church Autonomy principle, that protects religious institutions from government interference in their internal governance, particularly in the selection and management of ministers. It also ensures that courts do not intrude on decisions central to a religious organization’s faith and mission. The term “minister” is not limited to ordained clergy, and it can include any employee who performs significant religious functions (what matters most is what the employee does), with determinations made on a case-by-case basis.

It's an Affirmative Defense. Practically speaking, the ministerial exception operates as an affirmative defense to employment discrimination claims brought under federal laws such as Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as similar state laws. Its purpose is to prevent violations of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. As an affirmative defense, the party asserting it (the faith-based organization) has the burden of proving it. 

Recent Decisions in Washington and Minnesota. Recently, there have been some interesting cases related to the ministerial exception. Both decisions include solid examples of the documentation and practices necessary to support the successful assertion of the ministerial exception in employment-related litigation.

In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., 147 F.4th 959, 970 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a remotely based customer service representatives at World Vision, a Christian ministry, with vital religious duties that included engaging donors in prayer and communicating World Vision’s religious mission and qualified the position as a “minister” under the ministerial exception. As a result, McMahon’s claims under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination were barred. At first glance, this decision may seem surprising, as the role of customer service representative is not inherently ministerial, but upon further examination of key employment-related documents, including job descriptions, employment policies (handbook), and religious conduct expectations, it is abundantly clear that this role was performing vital religious duties at World Vision.  

In Schmidt v. University of Northwestern- St. Paul, (D MN, June 5, 2025), the Court ruled that the ministerial exception barred a former professor’s Title VII discrimination claim, finding that her role involved significant religious duties, even though she taught secular subjects. The Court emphasized that Schmidt was expected to integrate faith into her teaching, model Christian values, and support the university’s spiritual mission. However, the Court left open whether the ministerial exception applies to Schmidt’s negligent supervision claim, inviting further briefing.

What's next?  

If you have questions, reach out! 

I strongly recommend that faith-based organizations develop a strong relationship with legal counsel and advisors experienced with the ministerial exception and the broader legal considerations that impact faith-based employment practices, including our Faith-Based Industry Team at Michael Best.