The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Ministerial Exemption for the OSHA Mandate?
The 490-page rule says surprisingly little about religious liberty.
The OSHA Act has long offered an exemption for "churches":
1975.4(c)(1): Churches. Churches or religious organizations, like charitable and non-profit organizations, are considered employers under the Act where they employ one or more persons in secular activities. As a matter of enforcement policy, the performance of, or participation in, religious services (as distinguished from secular or proprietary activities whether for charitable or religion-related purposes) will be regarded as not constituting employment under the Act. Any person, while performing religious services or participating in them in any degree is not regarded as an employer or employee under the Act, notwithstanding the fact that such person may be regarded as an employer or employee for other purposes - for example, giving or receiving remuneration in connection with the performance of religious services.
As I read this rule, if a church employee is performing or participating in "religious services," he is not covered by OSHA. But when that same church employee is not performing or participating in "religious services, he is covered by OSHA. Here, OSHA anticipates something like the ministerial exception in Hosannah-Tabor. Yet, OSHA is far more narrow than the ministerial exception. That exception applies to ministers at all times during their vocations--not only when they are performing religious services.
How would the new OSHA mandate apply to churches with more than 100 employees? I think ministers, who often do things that are not "religious services," would at some times be subject to the OSHA mandate. A vaccine is not something that can be turned on or off depending on the activity being performed. Likewise, the masking requirement would apply for certain activities that are not "religious services." Imagine a priest talking with a parishioner about matters of faith. Is that a "religious service"? Would the federal government require a mask during that time? Moreover, there are major question problems with OSHA crafting such a regime. Plus the requirement of weekly testing is a burden for ministers. Given that RFRA is at issue, and not the Free Exercise Clause, I think there will have to be some sort of ministerial exception.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"surprisingly little about religious liberty"
Not surprising, the Democratic Party is actively hostile to religious liberty.
And the Republican Party favors limitless snowflake-level privilege for people who claim -- in a remarkably convenient and sketchy manner -- that their superstition constitutes a pass with respect to the customary duties of a citizen.
I know which side is going to prevail over the long term . . . unless, of course, the Lord God of the Bible and sweet infant eight-pound, six- ounce baby Jesus invoke the Rapture clause to avoid that long term.
Carry on, clingers.
Carry on, clingers.
1. "The 490-page rule says surprisingly little about religious liberty."
There is no longer such a thing.
2. "As I read this rule, if a church employee is performing or participating in "religious services," he is not covered by OSHA. But when that same church employee is not performing or participating in "religious services, he is covered by OSHA."
Which proves that the entire thing is bullshit. The Communist Chinese Virus does not know the difference.
It's not bullshit. At least not for the reason you cited. It's an acknowledgement that, in some cases, the goal of suppressing the Communist Chines Virus runs up against other goals, like respect for religious freedom, and an attempt to balance those goals in ways that aren't necessary when all we're interested in is suppressing the virus.
I should clarify that those times when all we're interested in is suppressing the virus are ones where religious freedom isn't an issue (not ones where we've decided to run roughshod over religious freedom).
It's kinda BS.
Imagine an accountant hired by the church to handle the church's finances. Many would consider that to be a "non-religious" role.
Now, extend that to a minister who does the church's finances part time, or overseeing those who are doing the finances. Would this be considered "non-religious"? (Likely yes.) So, some of the time, the minister is doing "non-religious" activities, and so is subject to the vaccine mandate or weekly testing and masking?
Or how about a religious school, where a teacher teaches religious subjects part of the day, and secular subjects another part of the day?
How does the fact that a rule written 40 years ago exempts the performance of religious services from the definition of employment "prove" that regulations to help stop a pandemic are "bullshit"?
If you can't figure that one, ask QAnon and learn something.
"As a matter of enforcement policy" sounds like the police in my area understanding they aren't supposed to ticket residents, but the words appear in a codified regulation. Does the sentence offer a legally permissible defense to OSHA enforcement?
This makes no sense at all. The ministerial exception provides that the government cannot compel a church to employ a certain minister. The OSHA rule doesn’t compel churches to employ anyone. The ministerial exception is completely inapposite here. Josh does not even try to construct an actual argument, he just spurts the words ministerial exception out.
Try reading the OSHA regulation he cites. True, it does not contain the words "ministerial exception," but what it describes sure sounds like it. OSHA, not Blackman, wrote that rule.
What I’m saying is that the entire concept of “ministerial exception” is inapplicable here.
Do your damnedest while you can, clingers. If you want your religion to be known mostly for virus-flouting recklessness, misogyny, science-disdaining stupidity, vestigial racism, tax avoidance, immigrant-hating xenophobia, old-timey gay-bashing, and demands for special privileges, be my guest.
Then, the Reckoning.
The Delta variant has now smoothed out the data and it is clear vaxxes work, masks work, and obviously lockdowns work. So take any logical grouping of states and if one of the states happened to have a Democrat governor that allowed public health officials to do their jobs and promoted the vaccines then that state has a significantly lower death rate than its neighbors. So in the SE North Carolina has the lowest death rate and among the 3 states in last place in everything (AL, MS, LA) Louisiana has the lowest death rate even though it was in the initial wave and it had 2 insane hurricane seasons and it was in the deep freeze. Bottom line—a governor like DeathSantis that bashed science and Fauci has 15,000 excess deaths on his hands compared to Cooper in NC…and NC hasn’t even done anything draconian in 2021!?!
I generally don't favor categorical statements, but here goes:
Anything that takes nearly 500 pages to express, takes nearly 2 months to write, and concerns a state of play in existence for nearly a year by definition cannot be addressing an "emergency" under any conceivable oldspeak understanding of the word.
We need to regain control of our language. And then flush this sort of pretextual merde to its proper destination.
Ok. You didn't bother to read it. Glad you admitted it.
The Bible is 2400 pages (in the edition I have).
Harper Lee did a better job in 281 pages. Some writers are superior to others.
Steinbeck (464), Heller (453), Ellison (581), Morrison (324), Orwell (328), and others also produced better work in fewer pages.
And, it should be recalled in fairness, some have better material with which to work.
In all fairness, Thomas Mann did a wonderful job with Joseph and his Brothers and took only 1492 pages to do so. (Of course he had Genesis to work from, so there's that)
https://bulkbookstore.com/joseph-and-his-brothers-9781400040018
If consuming the entirety of a piece of obviously overbloated dreck were really required to observe that it's such, that would perversely incentivize the feckless bureaucrats to make them even longer.
Seriously, any lawyer who can't lay out a framework for something truly intended to make inroads on a short-term emergency condition (as opposed to creating a long-term self-licking ice cream cone having little to do with the claimed emergency) in 10-20 pages AT MOST should quit their job and take up basket weaving. The effective ones are disabused of the paid-by-the-pound notion early on.
Josh is intentionally misleading by citing the number of pages.
What's been released so far is a pre-publication draft of the rule and regulatory release. Yes, it runs to about 490 pages. But in its current form, this reflects a document that is double-spaced, with wide margins. It has not yet been typeset for publication in the Federal Register (which is when it will become officially "adopted"), so its current page count is something of an inflation of its actual size. (Kind of like how page counts for legislative bills are hugely inflated, if you've ever looked at how they're typeset.)
What's more, of that double-spaced draft, only about 20 pages is required for the actual rule itself. The rest of the document is the non-binding "preamble," which is required by law to be included. In order to make good, binding regulations, under the APA and various other statutes that Congress has passed from time to time (ironically, to "cut red tape"), agencies have to go through and explain each and every provision of a new rule, including a justification for why it's needed. Then, after they've done that, they have to evaluate the rule's economic impact and impact on regulated parties. Because this rule is so significant, politically and economically, this means that OSHA has gone to great lengths to justify the rule it is trying to adopt here, so there are, in addition, lots of citations, which adds to the bulk.
And then the rule itself has to run through some technical language, citations to statute, parallel references in various related parts of the CFR, and so on. So even its 20 pages, in the current draft, doesn't quite capture how "big" the rule itself actually is.
The "major question problems" are not apparent to me. Unvaccinated ministers of qualifying churches will need to follow the masking and testing rules at work, except when they're performing or participating in religious services, in which case they won't. To the extent anyone can credibly claim that these requirements substantially burden their exercise of religion, this seems like an ample accommodation.
Noscitur,
You put it more clearly and more simply than I could have. I also don't get it. I understand (even if I may not agree with) the proposition that, "I want an exception made for me, while I do religious things, due to religious freedom, etc." I can wrap my head around that.
But there also seems to be the argument that, "Not only do I want special accommodation when doing my religious functions; I--as a religious actor--want exceptions for all of my activities."
I am just not getting the logic of this argument. You want to avoid wearing a mask while doing your religious service? Fine. You want to avoid a mask (or social distancing) while chatting with your flock. Fine--I can see how those conversations relate to religion. But, when you're doing your accounting for your church, in a room with 3 other people? There's zero religion/religious conduct there, so put on the fucking mask!
There. Solved it.
You're welcome, America.
" But there also seems to be the argument that, "Not only do I want special accommodation when doing my religious functions; I--as a religious actor--want exceptions for all of my activities." "
That is a routine example of the relatively new 'heads we win, tails you lose -- we can discriminate against everyone, no one can discriminate against us' standard that religious claimants seek to impose (and that Republicans have come to flatter in recent years).
Whether that superstition-laced silliness will survive much more American progress seeks doubtful.
More from Nancy
"And" weekly COVID testing. Which is more arduous.
Why don't we make everyone do weekly COVID testing?
Because if you're vaccinated, you're significantly less likely to be infected.
It's like asking why we don't do weekly COVID testing for people who are still working remotely. The answer is obvious to anyone not trying to reach a preordained conclusion.
"But, when you're doing your accounting for your church, in a room with 3 other people? There's zero religion/religious conduct there, so put on the fucking mask!"
Tithing is a Sacrament. Do you know what tithing is? Do you know what a Sacrament is? Of course not for either.
Do you know that both the giving and receiving of tithes and offerings is considered a religious act? And that many pastors and ministers pray over each individual gift by the members of their congregation? And the disbursement of such gifts?
I would suggest you leave the understanding of what religious conduct is to the people who actually perform religious conduct.
You're describing a particular subset of donations in a particular subset of faiths.
The Biden folks are trying to save lives. A lot of people are opposed to that.
A lot of people like freedom. It's always a balance, freedom versus safety.
Contrarian, faux libertarian, obsolete right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
I don't think the antivaxxers agree with you. Is there any mitigation effort that these antivaxxers and antimaskers is appropriate, for the risk?
I mean, have you forgotten how we got here? Letting life resume as normal, except with a mandate that people either get vaccinated against a virus that is still killing more than a thousand people a day, or take tests to ensure they're not actually infected, seems like a better balance than closing schools and businesses, doesn't it?
Do you have a realistic understanding of the risk?
And I wonder if you do.
Which is why we don't leave public health risks to individuals, generally, whether randos like you me and Simon, or even to scientists. We leave such risk decisions to our elected leaders.
Of any individual encounter? Sure. I understand that it's highly unlikely that any person I might encounter - while at the store, on the subway, working at the office, etc. - is actively infected and infectious with the virus. I also understand that, even if I am "exposed" to an infectious person, there's only a chance that I'll be infected, and even if I were to be infected, it's unlikely that I'll die, though there is a non-trivial risk that I'll have serious symptoms that may linger for months (as well as a reasonable chance that I'll experience no symptoms whatsoever). And I further understand that all of that risk is significantly mitigated by my own vaccination and general good health.
But this is not about individual encounters.
This is about public health policy and how the actions of individuals, in the aggregate, continue the propagation of the virus, giving it further opportunities to infect vulnerable populations and evolve past our current vaccines and mitigation efforts. We can see how many lives the virus has taken; we can estimate the impacts those deaths have had on people's families; we can measure the economic hit that extended recovery periods has on businesses and families; and so on. And we need to balance those costs against the imposition of mandates and other mitigation efforts.
So it is hard for me to see why imposing a vaccine on a shrinking minority of anti-vaxxers, a vaccine whose efficacy and safety has been proven, as paternalistic as it is, isn't "worth it." The "freedom" alternative means continuing, unpredictable spikes in cases in various regions of the country, placing burdens on hospital systems and resources. It means significantly more deaths and long-term illnesses. It means the significant costs and economic impacts implied by all of that. Vaccine mandates won't make the virus disappear, but they should allow us a faster return to "normal life."
If you disagree, then you need to explain exactly how many COVID deaths you think are acceptable. If you place no limit, then you're not really interested in thinking of this as a "balance."
No, the Biden folks are trying to assuage their mounting impatience with the citizenry not falling in line when ordered to do so.
We haven't quite reached the point in our devolution towards a police state where "Because I said so!" can stand alone, so excuses are required for why orders were issued. But it is quite clear that the Biden administration is not motivated by a desire to save lives, because they're neither testing nor vaccinating illegal immigrants before releasing them into the country.
I was not aware until recently when I delved into the details of my religion that a major part of the religion to which I belong requires that I and other members not only refrain from vaccinations and masking, but it is our sacred duty unto God that we spread disease and pestilence.
Our faith says that if we truly believe in the all powerful Deity, we must infect every person we meet so that our God (not necessarily your God, but that is irrelevant so long as we have sincerely held beliefs) can show his power and mercy by allowing only the unholy to get sick and only the truly wicked to die.
So under the positions expoused by Prof. Blackman and others who support him, government has no option but to accomodate us and allow us to infect the populace. Thank God!
Choose reason. Every time.
Choose reason. Especially over sacred ignorance and dogmatic intolerance. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for superstition, ignorance, bigotry, gullibility, and backwardness.
Choose reason. Every time. And education, tolerance, modernity, science, freedom, progress, and inclusiveness. Avoid superstition, ignorance, backwardness, bigotry, authoritarianism, insularity, childish dogma, and pining for "good old days" that never existed. Not 75 years ago. Not 175 years ago. Especially not 2,000 years ago. Not ever.
Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.
Or, at least, please try.
Thank you.