noting “that although application of Title VII ... to lay teachers at a religious college would often involve a “wide ranging investigation into many aspects of the College’s hiring practices,’ such supervision did not constitute ‘ongoing interference with the College’s religious practices’ ” in violation of the Establishment Clause
How later courts described this case
- noting “that although application of Title VII ... to lay teachers at a religious college would often involve a “wide ranging investigation into many aspects of the College’s hiring practices,’ such supervision did not constitute ‘ongoing interference with the College’s religious practices’ ” in violation of the Establishment Clause
- recognizing that “the First Amendment prohibits . . . [the courts] from inquiring into an asserted religious motive to determine whether it is pretextual.”
- acknowledging that only third prong was in dispute to determine whether state labor relations board could exercise jurisdiction with respect to parochial high schools and their lay teachers
- rejecting First Amendment challenge to National Labor Relations Board’s jurisdiction over unfair-labor-practice complaints against parochial schools by lay teachers obligated to transmit religious values to students
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Although I agree with the majority opinion on the preemption issue, I dissent on the constitutional issue for the reasons set forth in Judge Lasker’s opinion below, 573 F.Supp. 1550 (S.D.N.Y.1983), and in the seventh circuit’s opinion in Catholic Bishop v. NLRB, 559 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir.1977) (aff’d. on other grounds, 440 U.S. 490 , 99 S.Ct. 1313 , 59 L.Ed.2d 533 (1979)).