Federal Case

Case #2: Regional Implications

CompassCare v. Hochul

How could your ministry be required to hire employees with conflicting values?

What happens when a ministry is told it must employ individuals whose personal choices are not aligned with its mission? This is the issue CompassCare, a pro-life organization in New York, is facing under New York Labor Law Section 203-e, which prohibits employers from making hiring or firing decisions based on reproductive health choices.

What You Need to Know

In CompassCare v. Hochul, CompassCare contends that the law undermines their ability to require employees to adhere to their religious beliefs, claiming it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on religious organizations’ hiring practices. Meanwhile, New York defends the law as necessary to protect employees from discrimination, arguing that the measure ensures equal employment opportunities without unduly burdening religious freedoms. While a lower court initially dismissed most claims, the Second Circuit reinstated a key claim, indicating the law may violate constitutional protections. The case now returns to the lower court for further proceedings.

What Your Ministry Can Do

  1. Review Governing Documents: Ensure your mission, statement of faith, and employee handbooks clearly define expectations for staff.
  2. Partner with Legal Experts: Seek guidance on crafting policies that balance your convictions with compliance.
  3. Stay Informed: Monitor this and similar cases to anticipate changes that could impact your hiring practices.
Cross icon

Why This Matters

This case strikes at the heart of a ministry’s ability to uphold its mission. If the courts ultimately side against faith-based organizations, ministries could be forced to retain employees whose actions undermine the sincerely held values of the organization. This could erode the trust of congregants and donors, weakening the ministry’s impact.

Even beyond New York, the case sets a concerning precedent for other states to enact similar laws. Ministries across the nation must be vigilant in protecting their right to employ individuals who share their vision and values.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (covers CT, NY, VT).

Status: Case remanded by the Second Circuit back to the District Court for further consideration of additional claims.

Brotherhood Mutual is pleased to provide Legal Assist as a complimentary resource. Services through Legal Assist aim to provide general risk management guidance to our current and prospective policyholders.

While the information provided in this resource is intended to be helpful, it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your area. Please note that no attorney/client relationship is established through this process, and no legal advice will be provided. We strongly recommend regular consultations with a licensed local attorney as part of your risk management program.

Back to case listing