The Scope and Limits of the Ministerial Exception: A Closer Look at Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School and the Question of Anti-Gay Discrimination under Title VII

The ministerial exception to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an evolving area of law, especially as it pertains to cases involving discrimination based on sexual orientation. This post explores the ministerial exception and its implications for LGBTQ+ employees at religious institutions, focusing on the recent case Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School. This case tests the boundaries of religious freedom, anti-discrimination protections, and the legal definition of “ministerial” roles under Title VII, especially concerning employees in secular positions at religious institutions.

The Ministerial Exception and Title VII

The ministerial exception, grounded in the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, exempts religious organizations from Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination laws for roles deemed essential to the organization’s religious mission. However, ambiguity surrounds which roles qualify under this exception, particularly when employees serve secular functions. The ministerial exception is a judicially created doctrine, solidified in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020). This case recognized that religious organizations have the autonomy to make employment decisions for roles essential to their religious mission. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Courts have expanded “sex” under Title VII to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). However, courts have found that the ministerial exception along with Title VII leave ambiguity for secular roles within religious institutions.

Case Analysis: Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School

In Billard, Lonnie Billard, a gay substitute teacher and drama teacher at Charlotte Catholic High School, was terminated after announcing his marriage to a same-sex partner. Represented by the ACLU and the ACLU of North Carolina, Billard argued that his firing constituted sex-based discrimination under Title VII, as his employment was terminated solely due to his same-sex marriage—a protected class under Bostock.

The school argued that the ministerial exception protected its decision, claiming Billard’s employment status should be governed by religious autonomy principles. However, Billard’s position was secular; he did not perform religious functions or teach religious doctrine, making him an unlikely candidate for the ministerial exception. The school’s argument, on the other hand, hinged on the premise that as a religious institution, it has the right to enforce employment decisions that align with its beliefs, including those regarding same-sex marriage. 

On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Mr. Billard was not protected by Title VII because his job fell within the “ministerial exception” to Title VII. The court explained that Billard was a minister because Charlotte Catholic required all its teachers to “model and promote Catholic faith and morals,” making Billard, as a teacher at the school, a ‘“messenger’ of its faith.” 

Ministerial Exception: Limits and Ambiguities

The ministerial exception has been challenged in cases where the religious organization applies it to employees who are not primarily religious in function. In Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Supreme Court ruled that teachers with some religious duties could be considered “ministers,” thereby exempting their employment from anti-discrimination laws, but the ruling did not clarify where to draw the line for purely secular roles within religious organizations.

In Billard, the ACLU contends that the ministerial exception should not apply because Billard’s role did not involve religious instruction or duties. This argument underscores the broader debate about religious organizations’ scope to apply religious doctrines to employment policies for employees in non-ministerial, secular roles. Moving forward, if courts find that secular roles cannot invoke the ministerial exception, it will open avenues for LGBTQ+ employees to seek redress under Title VII when terminated based on sexual orientation.

Implications for LGBTQ+ Employees and Religious Liberty

The outcome of Billard significantly impacts LGBTQ+ employees in religious institutions. The court’s ruling that Billard’s job did fall within the ministerial exception to Title VII shows that there is more expansive protection of religious institutions from anti-discrimination laws even in situations where they fire employees in seemingly secular roles. 

The decision also will influence hiring and employment practices within religious institutions, as it will clarify the boundaries of religious autonomy in employment law. Balancing anti-discrimination protections with religious freedoms remains a contentious legal issue, and cases like Billard illustrate the potential for conflict between religious beliefs and employee rights under Title VII.

Conclusion

Billard presents a significant test of the ministerial exception’s scope in Title VII claims, specifically regarding anti-gay discrimination. The Fourth Circuit’s expansive interpretation of the ministerial exception suggests a judicial trajectory that may increasingly favor religious institutions’ autonomy over federal anti-discrimination protections, leaving LGBTQ+ employees in religious organizations with diminished legal recourse under Title VII.

This case underscores the ongoing tension between religious liberty and evolving civil rights protections, particularly as they relate to sexual orientation and gender identity in employment law. As courts continue to grapple with the boundaries between religious autonomy and civil rights protections, the Billard decision signals a robust interpretation of the ministerial exception that may significantly limit Title VII’s ability to protect LGBTQ+ employees in religious institutions, even those serving primarily secular roles.

Sarah Cha 

Class of 2026, Staff Member