The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Mormon Missionary Training, Insufficiently Feminine Haircuts, and the First Amendment
From Markowski v. BYU, decided yesterday by Judge Jill Parrish (D. Utah):
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("the Church") is a religious organization with its headquarters in Utah. One of the Church's "most recognized characteristics" is its missionary program. Church members, typically under the age of twenty-five, can serve a mission for eighteen to twenty-four months, during which they share the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church. Prior to beginning their mission, future missionaries spend a short period of time at a Missionary Training Center to learn how to effectively teach Church doctrine.
BYU is a university "founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." BYU's mission includes "making its resources available to the Church when called upon to do so." As part of this mission, BYU operates a Missionary Training Center ("MTC") in Provo, Utah. The MTC employs many BYU students who assist in preparing missionaries for their missions.
On November 6, 2017, BYU hired Plaintiff Ashtin Markowski ("Markowski") as a trainer at the MTC's Online Teaching Center. Markowski trained full-time missionaries in how to respond to online inquiries about the Church and how to use their social media to have discussions with people interested in learning more about the Church. Markowski also piloted new online engagement projects.
All MTC employees, including Markowski, must comply with the Church's Missionary Dress and Grooming Standards. On April 3, 2020, Markowski cut her hair short. Six weeks later, Markowski's supervisors informed her that they considered her haircut to be extreme and distracting. Her supervisors informed her that her haircut was "not feminine enough" and "was too masculine." They also complained that her eyebrows were "too firm." Markowski indicated that she did not want her haircut to jeopardize her ability to work at the MTC and agreed to grow her hair out. The next day, Markowski's supervisors fired her….
First, Markowski accuses BYU of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Second, Markowski also claims that BYU retaliated against her for complaining to supervisors that BYU applied a double standard in deeming her hairstyle "extreme" while allowing male employees to wear bleached hair….
Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of sex. Discrimination on the basis of sex includes "failing to fulfill traditional sex stereotypes." The parties do not openly dispute that BYU discharged Markowski for failing to fulfill traditional sex stereotypes.
Rather, resolution of this motion depends on whether the ministerial exception applies to bar application of Title VII to Markowski's termination. The Supreme Court first recognized a "ministerial exception" barring certain federal employment discrimination claims against religious institutions in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C. (2012). Specifically, the Supreme Court held that anti-discrimination employment law does not govern religious institutions' employment decisions regarding ministers. { Markowski concedes, and the court agrees, that BYU qualifies as a religious institution that may avail itself of the ministerial exception.} …
Based upon the undisputed facts, the court concludes that Markowski plainly performed vital religious duties.
First, her actions at work involved advancing the Church's mission by training missionaries. Specifically, both parties agree that Markowski "train[ed] full-time missionaries on how to properly use social media so as to convey the Church's message." Church leaders highlight God's commandment to "take this gospel to all the world" as one of the central tenets of their faith. As such, preparing missionaries to convey the Church's message via social media is essential to carrying out the Church's mission in the modern world. Indeed, in much the same way that the plaintiff-teachers in Morrissey-Berru "prepared the children for their participation in other religious activities," Markowski prepared current and future missionaries for participation in their Church missions—a religious activity that is central to the Church's mission.
Second, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Markowski directly instructed prospective members on the Church's teachings while on the job. And just as "educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school," educating prospective members and imparting the Church's teachings to potential members are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of the Church and its MTC. Indeed, according to Church founder Joseph Smith, "[a]fter all that has been said, the greatest and most important duty is to preach the Gospel." Markowski does not dispute that "[a]s part of her employment, [she] also acted as a moderator on the Church's Come Unto Christ Facebook page, and she had administrator access to communicate on behalf of the Church with other Facebook users on this page using the Facebook messenger feature." BYU provides evidence—and Markowski does not dispute the evidence—that while acting as a moderator as part of her employment, Markowski prayed with potential members, explained essential religious doctrine such as the path to salvation to potential members, and shared her personal faith with potential members. Indeed, one of the moderator group goals that BYU hired Markowski to advance was to "help each [Facebook group] member have a minister who can watch over them."
BYU also submits further evidence, which Markowski disputes, that Markowski engaged in teaching religious doctrine as part of her job. Specifically, BYU submits several pages of social media chats that show Markowski using the Church's chat system to teach potential members about Church doctrine…. ("We believe that, thanks to Jesus Christ, we are all saved! He has paid the price for all of us. However, we still need to keep the commandments and repent so we can continue to progress and become better people.") … ("Sometimes answers to prayers take a while. They may not be instant like you want it to be, but Heavenly Father really does hear and answers you."). Markowski does not contend that someone else wrote the chats or otherwise question the veracity of the chats submitted by BYU. Instead, she argues that the record does not establish whether she taught prospective members as part of her employment or on her own time. But Markowski has submitted no evidence in support of her contention that she did not engage in religious teaching on the job.
Even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Markowski, there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether Markowski taught religious doctrine as part of her job. She undoubtedly did. Markowski herself stated under penalty of perjury (in another lawsuit) that she "had an on-campus job at the Missionary Training Center where I … taught people about our church online." Such an unequivocal declaration—absent any evidence to the contrary—speaks for itself….
The court need not engage in any further analysis. Because the Supreme Court has instructed that "[w]hat matters, at bottom, is what an employee does"—and Markowski's actions alone make clear that she played a vital role in advancing the religious mission of BYU—her claim fails under the ministerial exception.
But were the court to look beyond Markowski's actions to the non-exhaustive factors listed in Hosanna-Tabor, it would reach the same conclusion. The job duties for Markowski's position were explicitly religious in nature and reflected a role in conveying the Church's message and carrying out its mission. The duties include "invit[ing] all to come unto Christ and help[ing] missionaries to effectively do the same" as well as "help[ing] interested individuals [come] closer to Christ and [helping] missionaries understand and apply their purpose." Moreover, Markowski's position required significant religious training. Employment at the MTC required service of an eighteen-month mission, including the related religious training encompassed in every mission, prior to hire. And Markowski's job required her to spend thirty minutes before each of her shifts preparing for work, including by studying the Book of Mormon. Finally, Markowski has expressly held out that part of her job included teaching people about the Church's doctrine…. ("I had an on-campus job at the Missionary Training Center where I … taught people about our church online."). Accordingly, the Hosanna-Tabor factors further support application of the ministerial exception.
In conclusion, as the Supreme Court has noted that "the First Amendment … gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations." Here, that special solicitude prevents Markowski from pursing her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation….
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
Maybe they could have been nicer and given her more time to grow her hair out if what she claims is true. But still part of being a Mormon is not conforming to the androgyny of modern Western society not exactly an earthshaking surprise.
It's not really about her growing her hair out.
It that she cut her hair to "better match her gender expression".
It may be the Mormon church didn't want an openly gay individual teaching religion....
Why not? Is the Mormon church bigoted?
You share a lot with them, in that respect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Views_on_gender_diversity_and_identity
"she cut her hair to "better match her gender expression" "
I don't think so. I believe she's lesbian, but not a trans male.
The hair is almost certainly not the real reason she was fired. But since BYU can get the claim dismissed even if that were the reason, that’s the focus of the legal strategy here. Had this motion been denied (which would have been a clear contradiction of Supreme Court precedent), BYU likely would have shifted to a strategy claiming that she wasn’t fired because of the hair.
How much simpler all this would have been if freedom of association hadn't been relegated to the dustbin of history!
I'm curious as to when in history was this glorious period of freedom of association that has now, sadly, been relegated to it's dustbin. Was it anytime before 1865? Anytime before 1965?
Pretty sure up until the last couple decades there were less slave cake baking edicts and people were overall freer to choose who they wanted to employ.
People were free-er under slavery and Jim Crow?
Oh, you mean *people like you.*
You people, good grief.
I don't oppose nondiscrimination laws (like the libertarian purists), but in general, the solution to not enough people having enough freedom was to *expand* it for everyone...not to whittle it away.
You're off by a year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
So the Good Old Days of Conservative Lore started with...LBJ's Presidency? You're a joke dude.
The 1964 civil rights act was overall a net expansion of freedom, and yes, most conservatives do support it. (In fact, only libertarian purists would want to repeal it.)
Lester Maddox would beg to differ. (But racists don't deserve freedom, right?)
net expansion.
I can't see another way to end Jim Crow than by the Feds insisting. If you have a better idea, I'd be interested.
"But racists don't deserve freedom, right?"
Apologies if I am misunderstanding your point, but people who wish to unlawfully infringe on the rights of others don't deserve the freedom to do so, and preventing them from doing so is a fundamental duty of government. On the local level, if I move into your house without permission, it is entirely appropriate for the government to stop me from doing so. On the federal level if a state government is unlawfully infringing on the rights of citizens, it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to stop that. This is true whether that infringement is separate-but-equal in Little Rock in 1957 or denying firearms ownership to D.C. residents in 2008.
If Lester Maddox or the trespasser or the DC mayor are unhappy that they don't have the freedom to continue to unlawfully infringe on the rights of others without interference, tough noogies.
Hmmm... Buried pretty deep in the article before we hear that there was a second lawsuit. No details but it does cast some doubt on the claim that the firing was solely because of the haircut.
Ultimately, the reason she was fired is irrelevant, because, per the Supreme Court, a church has practically unrestricted choice of its own “ministers”.
Legally, you are correct. Morally, it suggests that maybe it wasn't just the Church being jerks (see AmosArch's comment above about giving her more than a day for her hair to grow out) but that maybe it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
This is probably it...
https://kjzz.com/news/local/byu-grad-among-33-people-suing-us-dept-of-education-for-unsafe-lgbtq-campus-conditions
"University Cancels Female Student Over Haircut"
"Private University Cancels Female Student Over Haircut"
I don't see a problem with that.
So long as the University doesn't get any funding from government sources.... Right Planned Parenthood?
The great thing about a University like BYU is how it avoids the tendency towards orthodoxy so rampant in leftist academe.
forgot to log out of one of your sock accounts?
Sarcasm, how does it work?
I'd shut down all public colleges / universities. Then I'd let the remaining (private) colleges / universities maintain whatever orthodoxy they want (including leftism).
I wonder what the world would look like if we cut off even a sliver of the trillions of dollars and material support given to the wokites. Its almost unimaginable given how intrinsic and pervasive this patronage has become.
I hate defense spending too!
" I'd shut down all public colleges / universities. "
I would expect nothing else from an obsolete, disaffected, bigoted, education-disdaining clinger.
What a victory for free speech and a blow against orthodoxy that would be!
Again, you're a joke dude.
The blog title alone made me puke.
?
Mormon missionary training
Insufficiently feminine haircuts
First amendment
That’s a garbage mixture that you’re asking us to swallow.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your objection is. The case is about all three of these things, and while at first you might not think they'd go together (which is what might make the title slightly amusing), the opinion explains how they do. What's "garbage" about it?
With respect, it is inflammatory.
Markowski's haircut and eyebrows could very well have been 2 of a dozen issues discussed before her termination and, in my opinion, were unlikely to have been the deciding factor (they didn't even bring it to her attention for 6 weeks). Furthermore, BYU may simply have resisted the urge to dispute any facts alleged out of respect for the plaintiff and because their case was so strong. Why get into 'he said she said' when the ministerial exemption makes such arguments moot? If they had not obtained the summary judgement, couldn't the validity of the facts still be argued?
Which makes your statement: "The parties do not openly dispute that BYU discharged Markowski for failing to fulfill traditional sex stereotypes." at least a mild mischaracterization. Why would BYU openly dispute an allegation completely immaterial to their defense?
Wait a sec: Isn't that the court's statement? And why exactly do you think that it's a mischaracterization, mild or otherwise? Plaintiff is suing saying BYU discriminated against her based on sex. It makes sense that the court would explain just what BYU is saying, and not saying, in response. In particular, the court explains, BYU is not denying her claim, but is raising (essentially as an affirmative defense) its constitutional right to fire her. And then I in turn quote that.
Correct. It was the statement of the court and should not have been attributed to you. I am guilty of making an inference, most likely due to the inclusion of one of the plaintiff's claims in the headline. There is no discussion of the merits of the claims because they were deemed irrelevant.
With BYU having undergraduate enrollment roughly equal to UCLA, this certainly isn't their first rodeo. I am still curious as to whether the merit of the claims would ever be openly disputed if, as in this case, they are known to be irrelevant.
Accurately describing the allegations at issue in the legal decision under discussion is inflammatory, but inventing entirely speculative critiques against an employee is sober reasoning?
If I didn't know better, I'd almost think you were engaging in motivated reasoning to defend a religious institution you're aligned with!
He's sad he can't force everybody to embrace their 75 genders.
So the plaintiff's successor in her job of informing people about the Mormon religion and trying to lead folks into the LDS church should tell them that "We believe that, thanks to Jesus Christ, we are all saved! He has paid the price for all of us. However, we still need to keep the commandments and repent so we can continue to progress and become better people. And that includes the commandment about women not wearing their hair too short." That kind of undermines what seemed like a positive message, doesn't it?
I will be at the campus in eight weeks to celebrate with my 2nd child to graduate from BYU. He also served a 2-year mission. I would hope that readers of this blog are savvy enough to understand that the defendants here only have to present enough evidence to prove their defense. This is not the whole story and to try to posit what the message 'seems like' from the limited information available would be inflammatory.
That being said, I will point out that a Missionary Training Center is not an appropriate place for even the appearance of a challenge to the dogma of a church. Missionaries are preparing to teach doctrine in environments that are outright hostile to such efforts and the example of their trainers is critical to establishing and maintaining their morale. Behavior that might be tolerated among the students of BYU or even among the missionaries themselves, could confuse or otherwise impede the message being delivered when exhibited by the trainers.
There is no commandment about women not wearing their hair too short. I have personal knowledge of female missionaries who maintained very short haircuts that some would consider masculine while serving in the field. If you peruse the BYU website, I am sure you will find similar results. I would require reliable and complete information before forming an opinion about what message this incident conveys.
Chuck P. celebrates cancel culture?
That seems strange . . . until one recognizes that right-wing gay-bashers are doing the canceling. With a side of superstition!
In that case, of course, conservatives love cancel culture!
Cancel culture isn't about somebody not happening to qualify for something, because of whatever rules may exist for it.
It's about judging people as deserving of punishment or condemnation...not politely pointing out a mismatch.
Otherwise, it would be cancel culture if I don't get to play in the NBA...
I agree that, doing a bit of background research, it seems pretty obvious that she was forced out for being gay.
Why you think this is a vindication of BYU or the LDS church is unclear to me.
"Why you think this is a vindication of BYU or the LDS church is unclear to me."
Seems like an "If you have to ask I can't explain it" situation...
Chuck P, my comment was probably too snarky. I've known quite a few Mormons in my life, as friends, colleages, and clients. They have uniformly been good, honest people. And I understand that the young woman in this case could fairly be held to a high standard because of her role in training missionaries. But going only by the facts presented in the opinion, the church's ruling seemed harsh, particularly in contrast to the assertion that because of Christ all our sins are forgiven (btw many "main line" Christian denominations do not accept that proposition, indeed regard it as heresy, but I think it's exactly right).
Please accept the congratulations of a crochety old Episcopalian to your son for his graduation and best wishes for his ministry.
The ministerial exception is one of those overly broad and deferential religious freedom doctrines that we can only hope will eventually be unwound or narrowed, maybe in another half century or so.
Of course, we're about ready to add another half dozen to the heap. Careful what you wish for.
There is a strange citation of religious teaching, here, in determining whether an instructor of missionaries can be properly characterized as falling within the exception. I would have thought that particular kind of use of religious cite would be prohibited under the Establishment Clause. But since the reasoning primarily relies on other findings, it's perhaps not as much of a concern.
whats so awful about letting the mormons employ who they want? Don't like it? work for the jillions of other people who aren't mormon. I'd thought you guys would get it given how much you squawk about business freedom when it comes to giant tech monopolies.
Do you expect the Volokh Conspiracy's collection of disaffected clingers to take the same position with respect to Georgetown?
Hell, he doesn't feel that way about the tech companies he himself brings up!
"Big Tech" companies raise monopolistic / common-carrier concerns. If there were thousands comparably sized Googles and Twitters out there, I don't think he'd begrudge them their ideological agendas...
If Georgetown would acknowledge that it's as ideologically narrow and rigid as BYU, then sure.
For non-public universities, I think it just comes down to being honest about your agenda. (And honestly includes not hiding behind vague, benign-sounding terms to cloak a very specific ideology...)
I'm fine with the Mormons only employing people who abide by Mormon teaching. We can acknowledge an exception to our religious accommodation laws for that.
What I'm not fine with is the Mormons having free rein to fire people over matters that have nothing to do with religious teaching - such as cutting their hair, getting cancer, becoming pregnant, becoming too old, being a woman or Black, etc.
How tremendously ignorant of major world religions do you have to be to imagine that rules about cutting hair aren't matters of religious teaching? Leviticus 19:27, 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, the Sikh kesh, Islamic rules on qaza . . . .
It's not against the Mormon faith, which was the point.
Anyway, I can acknowledge that some religions take hair-cutting more seriously, and I was speaking over-broadly, if I'm taken to have suggested that no religion anywhere could possibly be concerned by it.
If we were talking about a religion where hair-cutting was regulated, and about a related religious institution that had fired a woman who had cut her hair in violation of those religious rules, then it would fall within what I would view as a more "reasonable" version of the ministerial exception. That's not the case here.
SCOTUS has been clear that courts can't get involved in who has the "correct" interpretation of a given religion.
There are plenty of examples of cases where religions have imposed specific grooming standards, including hairstyle, for specific classes of person. For example, under the Code of Canon Law (1917), a Catholic priest had to maintain clerical tonsure, even if laymen did not. The Mormons promulgating "Missionary Dress and Grooming Standards" to which missionaries and their instructors must adhere is quite obviously parallel.
Is it? Here's the only thing they say about hairstyles:
(This is part of why Markowski points to how the MTC tolerated bleached hair in men - it reflects a sex-discriminatory application of this standard.)
If you go to their website, you can see actual examples of "acceptable" women's haircuts, which include several short styles and "natural" hair for Black woman. (It would appear that Black Mormon men will not generally be allowed to have any kind of length to their hair.) Once you see the actual standard, and how they purport to apply it, it becomes clear that this is just an open-ended standard to allow the Mormon Church to exercise and enforce discriminatory standards on its missionaries and "ministerial" employees, with an almost obvious greater leeway for white men and women than others.
Seems like an odd example to choose for the Mormon church.
So, what are some other "overly broad and deferential" "freedom doctrines" that you'd like to "unwind or narrow"? Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? Freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Lol, you elided the word 'religious' in your restatement, a major qualifier included in the original statement.
You're a joke dude.
The ministerial exception is too broad.
We may soon have a "most favored nations" approach to generally applicable and facially neutral laws, that essentially ensure that any person with a sufficiently "sincere" religious belief needn't comply with the same laws that the rest of us do.
These aren't freedoms. They're special rights.
The ministerial exception is quite narrow. It only protects religious institutions in their religious employment related decisions.
Where the exception is applicable to a broad range of employees with sometimes only tenuously "religious" duties, according to a standard that is deferential to the employer and its say-so, and the exception applies to exempt any kind of discrimination or adverse employment action, regardless of its relationship to the religious duties in question.
It makes sense to say that a church whose core teachings prohibit miscegenation shouldn't be obliged to hire a pastor who has married a member of another race. It doesn't make sense to say that a church should be able to fire a math teacher at a religious school when she gets breast cancer.
The exception is broad in relation to its intended goal, which is to avoid undo state interference in a church's leadership or religious teaching. The fact that it is "narrow" as measured against various other religious exceptions we may imagine is beside the point.
A narrower view of the ministerial exception likely wouldn't affect the outcome of the present case. The court found that the woman by her own admission was engaged directly in religious instruction.
It's not. It's applicable to a narrow range of employees at a very narrow range of employers.
But you're begging the question. The ministerial exception doesn't say that you can fire a religious employee for getting breast cancer. It says that a court can't adjudicate that issue in the first place, because a court can't, consistent with the first amendment, adjudicate whether an employee was doing a good job conveying religious doctrine or values to students or parishioners. (And the latter is the normal defense to a wrongful termination claim: actually the employee was terminated for job-related reasons.)
Which is fair enough, as far as that goes. The problem is that the ministerial exception is broader than this. It doesn't just preclude courts from deciding whether Markowski was a good teacher of the faith. It precludes courts from evaluating whether Markowski was fired on the basis of sex - a point that was actually conceded for sake of argument.
Why would we hope that?
Any person who cares for the rule of law would.
The First Amendment is the law.
Yet it lacks anything we could describe as a "ministerial exception," as currently articulated in the cases.
Anyway, you might as easily have said, "The ministerial exception is the law." Which would make your evasion a bit clearer. The "rule of law" refers not to some vague sense in which the law is the law, but rather to the achievement of what are typically called "rule of law" values, such as having legal rules be publicly known, consistently followed, and not widely disregarded. If our legal system functions in a way where individuals or institutions are essentially entitled to decide for themselves whether the law applies to them, we are losing our grip on the rule of law.
It's worth remembering that the ministerial exception is itself a kind of end-run around the Employment Div. v. Smith standard. Indeed, it doesn't even bother to apply a "strict scrutiny" standard of review - the only question is what the fired employee does, and this itself is evaluated in a fairly deferential way. So the ministerial exception ends up being this hole blasted right through any number of labor and employment laws, applicable to any employee who can be said to have enough of a role in the moral instruction or guidance of the institution, according to the institution.
That's not how the "rule of law" usually works for the rest of us.
The same thing is going to happen if the Court continues to push back on the Smith standard as it has in the COVID cases. We simply cannot have a system where some of us have to follow the law as written and anyone with a "sincere religious belief" that they shouldn't have to, doesn't.
It only applies to ministerial organizations, so that narrows it a lot right there.
And it only applies to employees who are tasked with furthering that ministerial mission. It doesn't apply to the accountant, the cook, or the janitor.
But it certainly applies in this case to where she herself stated she: "had an on-campus job at the Missionary Training Center where I … taught people about our church online."
Its a slam dunk.
Many people who claim to believe in "the separation of church and state" really mean they don't want the church meddling in state affairs, but have no problem at all with the state meddling in church affairs. In fact, they seem to favor the state incessantly meddling in church affairs.
Play childish and stupid games in the land of magic underwear, win childish and stupid prizes.
No taxpayer money should fund these childish and stupid games, however, especially when they masquerade as education.
I would hope that this case has inspired Ms. Markowski to reassess whether she really wants to continue to try to engage with a church that holds her in such contempt—and that it might inspire some similar critical examination of some of its other more preposterous doctrines
This is the correct decision according to current US law.
However, LSD church law does not prohibit short hair on women, so this is BYU being complete dicks.
The military requires (men) to cut their hair even though lice and other such concerns are basically thing of the past and even if they weren't the regulation is still sex specific and I don't see you having a cow over it.
It was the woman who was fired for having short hair, so it was the BYU who had a cow. Military is rare example where sex discrimination is still sometimes legal. A normal private company would have lost this case.
To be clear, you don't have the foggiest idea why they fired her — that they did so because of her hair is her unsubstantiated¹ allegation — so you have no idea whether a normal private company would have lost this case.
¹To be clear about my being clear, I am not claiming that she couldn't have substantiated it; I have no idea. I'm simply saying that it never was, because of the procedural posture of the case.
It's not really about her short hair.
The "ministerial exception" is too narrow and conflicts directly with the principle that courts should not be in the business of interpreting church doctrine. Applying judicial tests to determine whether an employee is or is not a "minister" IS interpreting church doctrine.
I think there has to be some test. And I don’t think you can call the Hosannah-Tabor test overbroad without coming up with an example where it results in declaring someone a non-minister that you think obviously is a minister.
I accept that we aren’t going to allow the Church of White Supremacy to declare every member a minister and every member’s business church business in order to completely circumvent Civil Rights laws, and every Big Evil Corporation calling itself a church and its employees ministers to avoid its employment obligations. That means there has to be an external test of what’s a minister and what’s not that courts apply.
The Hosannah-Tabor test is not necessarily limited to the activities of traditional Christian churches. For example, the 4th Circuit held that a kosher supervisor is a “minister” for purposes of the exception.
But if we want a world where churches get some accommodation without every charlatan who wants to evade the law calling themselves a church, then there has to be some test distinguishing genuine ministers from bogus ones.
You are acting as if Morrissey-Berru came out the other way — adopting the 9th circuit's mistaken interpretation of Hosanna-Tabor. The ministerial exception does not depend on "interpreting church doctrine" to determine whether an employee is a minister. It just asks whether the person had religious duties.
It seems pretty open and shut. The plaintiff here did work which was much more obviously ministerial in character than was the case for the teacher in Hosannah-Tabor.
I agree with you that it's open and shut, but not so sure that Ms. Markowski at BYU is "more obviously ministerial" than Ms. Perich at H-T. Ms. Perich had gone through an ordination ceremony, attended seminary classes, and was directly employed by the local Lutheran church, not by a private organization closely aligned with a church. Ms. Markowski's work is obviously religious, but it does seem a few steps more informal and removed from the actual Church of LDS.