Recently, the Ninth Circuit took a broad view of the First Amendment’s protection of religious organizations, concluding that a religious employer’s customer service representatives (CSR) perform key religious functions and are, therefore, exempt from the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and similar state laws (McMahon v. World Vision Inc., No. 24-3259, 2025 WL 2217629 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025).
Ordinarily, religious organizations must follow neutral and generally applicable employment laws. However, based on the First Amendment’s religious freedom clause, courts have recognized a “ministerial exception” to enforcing antidiscrimination laws for certain employees within religious organizations who perform important religious functions in the context of the organizations’ religious mission. This exception provides religious organizations broad freedom to choose who will carry out their religious mission without the “constitutionally impermissible interference by the government.”
The exception doesn’t apply to all the religious organizations’ employees — only to certain key personnel that perform “vital religious duties” related to the organization’s mission. But determining the scope of the exception — what qualifies as an important religious function, which employees are covered, etc. — is a difficult issue courts have been increasingly wrestling with in recent years.
In earlier cases, courts commonly applied the exception to religious organizations’ clergy and ministers. In recent cases, courts have applied it to teachers at religious schools, work practice apprentices at a Zen Buddhist temple and a mashgiach, an inspector who ensures compliance with Jewish dietary laws.
In this Ninth Circuit case, Aubry McMahan, an openly gay individual in a same-sex marriage, applied for a customer service representative position with World Vision, an organization that holds itself out to the public as a Christian religious organization dedicated to accomplishing its mission through humanitarian outreach to children and families around the world who are poor and underserved.
The CSR position didn’t require any formal religious education or training, and the job posting described CSR qualifications, such as minimum education, access to internet, technical skills, etc. Additionally, it described World Vision’s expectations of CSRs, including things like “[h]elp carry out our Christian organization’s mission, vision, and strategies,” participate in certain religious gatherings and pray with donors when appropriate. Upon hire, CSRs receive nine to 11 weeks of training covering religious topics such as praying with donors and participating in various religious gatherings.
World Vision provides Standards of Conduct to clarify its expectations and assist applicants and employees in deciding whether World Vision is the right place for them. Among other things, the Standards of Conduct states World Vision’s belief that biblical marriage is between a man and woman. To be eligible for employment, individuals must be able to affirm and comply with the Standards of Conduct.
Shortly after applying, McMahon conducted a phone interview with World Vision. The company asked questions about her background, interest in the job and technical skills. World Vision also asked McMahon to describe her personal faith and asked if she was willing and able to comply with the Standards of Conduct, which she answered affirmatively.
World Vision offered McMahon the job. Later that same day, McMahon emailed World Vision, informing it that McMahon and her wife were expecting their first baby and asking if she would be eligible for any time off. World Vision engaged in internal discussions about the application of its “Biblical marriage policy” and decided to rescind McMahon’s job offer because of the conflict with World Vision’s Standards of Conduct. McMahon sued World Vision under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
The district court granted summary judgement in favor of McMahon, concluding that World Vision unlawfully discriminated based on sex, sexual orientation and marital status by rescinding McMahon’s job offer. The court rejected World Vision’s argument that the CSR position is subject to the ministerial exception, noting that CSRs job duties were mostly administrative, not ministerial.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court. When determining whether an employee falls within the ministerial exception, courts take all relevant circumstances into consideration to determine whether that particular position performs “vital religious duties” in light of the religious organization’s core mission. After a lengthy analysis, the court found that World Vision’s CSRs qualify for the exception.
The court noted that, based on World Vision’s stated religious mission and described practices, the CSRs are the sole employees interfacing with donors and soliciting donations, which World Vision viewed as a form of ministry or religious practice. CSRs also routinely pray with donors about their needs and the needs of the children they sponsor and are responsible for teaching curious donors about World Vision’s Christian faith and giving them an opportunity to join in their mission. When examined in context, the court said, these CSRs qualify for the ministerial exception because they perform vital religious functions that lie at the core of World Vision’s particular religious mission.
Though a seemingly broad application of the ministerial exception, religious employers should note that the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion was based on World Vision’s particular religious mission and how CSRs furthered that mission. In that specific context, CSRs perform “vital religious functions.” In other organizations with different circumstances, the court might come to a different conclusion and allow Title VII enforcement with respect to positions that appear to perform predominantly administrative tasks.
James W. Ward, J.D., Employment Law Subject Matter Expert/Legal Writer and Editor, CalChamber
CalChamber members can read more about the “Ministerial Exception” in Religious Discrimination in the HR Library. Not a member? Learn how to power your business with a CalChamber membership.
