Honestly marbren, I don't know what to tell you. After looking into the case, some details came to light that make this a little more cut and dried in my mind, but it's still distasteful all the same.
First of all the teacher, Cheryl Perich, was not only hired to teach secular classes but was also required to be a commissioned (not sure if this is the same as being ordained) minister and lead students in prayer and worship.
Second, the School was owned and operated by a Church, the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich. Since this was not a secular School, no public funds were involved in the employment of Ms. Perich.
Third, when Ms. Perich became ill in 2004 and spent several months on disability, Perich was diagnosed and treated for narcolepsy and was able to return to work without restrictions. But she said the school at that point urged her to resign and, when she refused, fired her.
I may be reading that wrong, but from my impression, the teacher was allowed to return and then a short time later requested to resign and then fired. I'm not sure exactly what happened here but just how far into an employer's business practices can the EEOC delve before someone says that it's too much? I understand that we aren't to discriminate against people, but what about the employer? Is the Church stuck with this employee now, even if she can't do the work, just because she got narcolepsy?
In my mind, it's cut and dried that since the sickness precludes Ms. Perich from doing her job, she shouldn't be allowed to keep her job. Perhaps another position could be found for the woman by the Church that was running the School, but that's the Church's decision and not up to the Court. After all, the Church is providing the funding for the position anyway, why should the Court think it has dominance here? It sounds like to me that the "Separation of Church and State" that the liberals are so fond of quoting is only a one-way separation and only then when it will benefit them.
You may be right, I do not know much about the case either. I thought the doctor said she could resume her job but the church did not want her anymore. I would guess for money issues. What does her contract say? If it is a “called” position doesn’t the Holy Spirit decide when she should leave?
I believe this is about whether the teacher is exempt from the ADA re: her dismissal. ADA requires that employers make reasonable accomodations to those who are disabled as defined in the act when they are requested to do so by the employee. They are to do this provided the essential nature of the job function is not compromised by the accomodation. Rasonable accomodation may be special equipment, it may be being reassigned to another post, it might be different hours. I suppose for a teacher with narcolepsy it might be to have an aide in the classroom to protect her from self injury and to wake her up.
The Church probably required a fitness for duty report and the Doctor gave them a report which said she was o.k to return to work if on medication. The employer is not obligated to agree with the report but is free to make its own decision. The ADA claim is a separate issue since having a disability that can be controlled or relieved by medication does not mean you are no longer disabled.
This teacher believes and the EEOC agrees she was discriminated against under ADA. The CHurch and those filing the Amicus Curae dispute that claiming a determination in her favor is a major government intrustion into the self determination of religious organizations.
The Holy Spirit is sitting this one out.