Headley v. Church of Scientology: Forced Labor Claims v. Church of Scientology Fail Because Plaintiffs Could Have Left Church

Headley v. Church of Scientology International, ---F.3d --- (9th Cir. 7/24/12) presents unique issues regarding human trafficking and forced labor and gives a remarkable view of the workings of the Church of Scientology.  I find the opinion's introduction fascinating and will quote it at length.  

This case centers around the Church of Scientology International (the Church) and its component Sea Organization (or Sea Org). The Church exercises overall ecclesiastical management of the Scientology religion. The Sea Org is an elite religious order of the Church and acts as Scientology’s evangelical wing. The Sea Org demands much of its members, renders strict discipline, imposes stringent ethical and lifestyle constraints, and goes to great efforts to retain clergy and to preserve the integrity of the ministry. These features of the Sea Org flow from the teachings and goals of the Scientology religion.  

Scientology teaches that man is an immortal spiritual being that, over time, becomes distressed as his mind experiences moments of pain or lowered consciousness.  Scientology maintains, however, that man can overcome that distress—he can become “clear”—by using methods developed by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology aims to disseminate Hubbard’s teachings to  “clear the planet”—that is, to help enough people to overcome spiritual distress to free the planet of crime, war, and irrationality. That effort is entrusted largely to the Sea Org.   

Before embarking on that effort, each Sea Org member makes a symbolic one-billion-year commitment to serve the Church.  A member may make that commitment only after undergoing extensive training and study, passing a fitness exam, and obtaining a Church-issued certification attesting that the applicant is qualified for Sea Org life.  During their training, Sea Org members learn that the ministry will require them to work long hours without material compensation, to live communally, to adhere to strict ethical standards, and to be subject to firm discipline for ethical transgressions.  The Church, in turn, agrees to provide Sea Org members with all living necessities and a weekly allowance for incidental items.     

The Sea Org’s lifestyle constraints include strict policies on outside communications, marriage, and children.  Sea Org members’ mail is censored and phone calls are monitored as part of ministry discipline and policy. Because Sea Org life may at any moment require a member indefinitely to serve anywhere in the world, the Church prohibits Sea Org members from having children unless they leave the order. A Sea Org member who chooses to have a child must transfer out of the Sea Org (but can still work for the Church).  And staff members in Scientology’s Religious Technology Center (the Center)—which promotes the orthodox practice of Scientology—are permitted to marry only other Center staff.   

Sea Org members learn that strict discipline is central to preserving the integrity of Scientology’s ministry. If a member fails to meet Scientology’s ethical standards, he may be disciplined with verbal warnings or rebukes, loss of privileges, removal from a post, diminution of responsibilities, manual labor, or expulsion. Sea Org members also participate in religious training and practices, including “confessionals.” In a confessional, a member confesses transgressions and may then be absolved or disciplined.   

This demanding, ascetic life is not for everyone—and is not even for many of those who go through the Sea Org’s extensive training and preparation. Members thus often wish to leave the Sea Org for a more normal life. A member may formally withdraw his vows and leave the ministry through a process called “routing out.” Routing out allows a member to remain a Scientologist in good standing. The process involves filling out a form and normally includes participating in Scientology ethics programs. Routing out can take weeks or months. During that time members are excused from their posts but are expected to continue serving the Church by performing chores.    

Some Scientologists leave the Sea Org without routing out —a practice known as “blowing”—but the Sea Org discourages members from doing so. When a member leaves without routing out, other members may band together to try to locate that member and attempt to  persuade him to return to the Sea Org.  Scientologists believe that such an effort—known as a “blow drill”—is integral to their efforts to clear the planet and to help their members (even departed ones) achieve salvation. So important is this to the Church that a blown member may be disciplined if he returns or may be declared a “suppressive person.” Being so declared is akin to being excommunicated or shunned, and can cause blown members to lose contact with Scientologist family or friends. 

Plaintiffs Marc and Claire Headley were members of the Church and the Sea Org.  After leaving the Sea Org, they sued for violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which prohibits an employer from obtaining another’s labor  “by means of” force, physical restraint, serious harm, threats, or an improper scheme. 22 U.S.C. 7100 et seq.  The district court granted summary judgment for the Church, and the plaintiffs appealed.  

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown that the Church obtained their labor "by means of" serious harm, threats, or other improper methods. The Court found that the plaintiffs worked voluntarily for the Church and could not show that that "serious harm" would befall them "if they did not continue to work" or that threats “compel[ed] [them] to remain" with the employer. The threat that they could in effect be excommunicated from the Church if they left is not "'serious harm'—and warning of such a consequence is not a 'threat'—under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act."  

The Court did not reach the question of whether the ministerial exception would bar a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. See, e.g., Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694, 702 (2012) (discussed here).  

The opinion is available here. 

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC: Teacher/Minister May Not Sue Church for Discrimination, Wrongful Termination

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, --- S.Ct. ----, 2012 WL 75047 (1/11/12), the Supreme Court considered whether a minister may sue her church for wrongful termination based on acts of discrimination. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such actions.

Cheryl Perich worked as a teacher for Hosanna-Tabor. She was considered "called," meaning that she was regarded as having been called to her vocation by God through a congregation. She taught academic and religious classes and led the students in prayer. Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and went on disability leave. When Perich advised the school that she was able to return to work, it told her that it had filled her position. After Perich showed up for work, Hosanna-Tabor terminated her.

Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Hosana-Tabor had terminated her employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U. S. C. §12101 et seq. The EEOC filed suit, alleging that Hosanna-Tabor had fired Perich in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit. Hosanna-Tabor moved for summary judgment, arguing that Perich was a minister, and she had been fired for a religious reason - namely, that her threat to sue the Church violated the Synod’s belief that Christians should resolve their disputes internally. The District Court agreed that the suit was barred by the ministerial exception and granted summary judgment in Hosanna-Tabor’s favor. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the decision, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

The Court began by tracing the history of the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses from the Magna Carta, through the reign or Henry VIII, to the founding of the colonies by the Puritans, and the early days of the United States. The principal lesson drawn from this history is that the government under the First Amendment has no role in telling a church whom to choose as its minister. In the words of then Secretary of State James Madison in 1806, the selection of church functionaries was an “entirely ecclesiastical” matter left to the Church’s own judgment. Slip op. at 9.

The Court then considered whether "this freedom of a religious organization to select its ministers is implicated by a suit alleging discrimination in employment." Slip op. at 13. The Court held that there is a “ministerial exception,” grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes application of anti-discrimination legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Ibid.

The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

Slip op. at 13-14.

The Court then held that the ministerial exception applied to the facts of the present case. The Court declined to set a bright line rule on the limits of the ministerial exemption and instead looked to the particular facts of the case, including: Hosanna-Tabor held Perich out as a minister; her title as a minister "reflected a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning;" Perich held herself out as a minister of the Church by accepting the formal call to religious service; and her job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission. Slip op. at 16-18. The Court concluded:

The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.

Slip op. at 21-22.

The opinion is available here.