Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, et al.
When a food inspector sued his religious employer over unpaid wages and a missed promotion, the court faced a pivotal question: Can religious organizations lose First Amendment protection if their employment decisions appear unrelated to religion? In a major decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled no—and reaffirmed a powerful legal shield for ministries.
In Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, et al., an Orthodox Jewish man worked for seven years as a mashgiach—a religious inspector ensuring kosher food standards—at two wineries. He later sued the organization that employed him, claiming he had been denied overtime pay and misled about promotions. His employer argued that the ministerial exception—a legal doctrine that protects the right of religious institutions to make employment decisions about their ministers without government interference—shielded it from lawsuits brought by ministerial employees. The Ninth Circuit agreed. The court found that the organization was clearly religious and that Markel’s position, as someone responsible for kosher compliance, was essential to the ministry’s spiritual mission.
This Ninth Circuit ruling strengthens legal protections for religious organizations in its jurisdiction by affirming their constitutional right to make employment decisions about individuals in religious roles without court interference, even when those decisions appear unrelated to theological doctrine. Notably, the court broadened the definition of who qualifies as a “minister,” clarifying that the ministerial exception applies not only to clergy, but also to employees whose work is meaningfully tied to the organization’s religious mission. As a result, religious employers may be shielded from a wider range of employment-related lawsuits if the employee’s role is connected to the ministry’s religious functions. While the ruling is only binding in the Ninth Circuit, its reasoning may influence how courts in other parts of the country interpret similar cases, potentially expanding protections for ministries nationwide.
Court: Ninth Circuit (Covers AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA)
Status: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Markel’s claims. No further appeals or petitions have been filed.
Date: December 30, 2024
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.
