World Vision scores win on LGBTQ firing

A federal appeals court panel late Tuesday vindicated the right of Christian relief agency World Vision to rescind an employment offer to an applicant who was in a same-sex relationship. The nonprofit argued that the applicant’s action violated World Vision’s statement of belief and standards of conduct.

In a unanimous ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the ministry’s withdrawal of a customer service representative (CSR) offer to Aubry McMahon. The court argued that World Vision’s action did not violate federal and Washington state nondiscrimination laws because it fell under the “ministerial exception.” The First Amendment-derived doctrine provides churches and religious institutions with broad autonomy in respect to key employees who serve vital religious duties—including who to employ.

McMahon applied for the remote position working with donors in late 2020. In a telephone interview, a ministry representative asked if she was willing and able to comply with the standard of conduct for the organization. “I’m aligned, yes!” McMahon responded, according to court documents. But at the time, she was married to another woman, pregnant via a sperm donor, and active in LGBTQ causes.

After receiving an offer for the position on Jan. 4, 2021, McMahon informed the ministry that she and her wife were expecting a baby, and she asked whether, as a new employee, she would receive any time off. Four days later, World Vision rescinded the offer due to McMahon’s noncompliance with the ministry’s standard of conduct, which barred employees from sexual relationships outside of marriage between one man and one woman.

McMahon sued World Vision in July 2021, claiming unlawful discrimination. Although a federal judge initially sided with World Vision, he reconsidered, ruling against the ministry in July 2023 and again in November 2023.

But Tuesday’s decision affirmed World Vision’s rights in its hiring decisions. In a 34-page opinion for the court, Senior Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee, emphasized that customer service representatives serve “key religious functions” for the ministry. Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould, also a Clinton appointee, and Morgan B. Christen, a Barack Obama appointee, joined him in the opinion.

“CSRs are responsible for effectively communicating World Vision’s worldwide ministries and projects to donors and supporters,” wrote Tallman. “CSRs engage with donors in prayer and give them the opportunity to join World Vision’s religious mission through financial contributions.”

Tallman emphasized that the district court erred in “viewing the CSR’s responsibilities in the abstract, isolated from World Vision’s central mission of ‘inspiring those donors who share World Vision’s faith and by sharing that faith with those who don’t.’”

But Tallman cautioned that there are limits to churches’ and religious organizations’ autonomy. He wrote that other rulings applying the ministerial exception often contained a “common thread”: all the employees “performed ‘vital religious duties’ in light of the core missions of their respective organizations.”

That argument would not cover other employees, Tallman argued. “Secretaries, accountants, and custodians at World Vision, despite having the same religious obligations to attend chapel and bear witness to Jesus Christ, would not qualify for the ministerial exception because, unlike CSRs, they are not charged with conveying the organization’s message to its donors—a role ‘vital’ to World Vision’s central mission,” he wrote.

At the same time, he declined to address World Vision’s broader claims that the district court rejected, including claims of a broader autonomy in the ministry’s membership decisions as a religious organization and freedom of expressive association under the First Amendment.

But Brad Jacob, an associate dean and constitutional law professor at Regent University School of Law, argued that a religious exemption in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all employees at a religious organization—not just those qualifying for the ministerial exception. Under the religious exemption, religious organizations may discriminate on the basis of religion in respect to the hiring and firing of all employees.

“Ms. McMahon had her job offer revoked because she does not share World Vision’s religious convictions about God’s design for human sexuality and marriage,” Jacob said. “This would cause her claim to lose even if there were no ministerial exemption.”

Becky Dummermuth, senior counsel with the Texas-based First Liberty Institute, agreed with Jacob that Title VII’s religious exemption should resolve the issue for non-ministerial employees. First Liberty filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of World Vision on behalf of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

“Samaritan’s Purse says, right on their website, that they want all of their employees—anyone involved in the delivery of their services— to be able, if asked, to answer [the questions], ‘Why are you here? What are you? Why are you helping us?’” said Dummermuth. That extends even to custodians and secretaries whose jobs are generally considered not ministerial.

But because some states like Washington have narrowly interpreted the religious exemption in state nondiscrimination laws, the issue will likely persist until the Supreme Court resolves it.

A different panel of the 9th Circuit is currently considering a broader religious autonomy claim in another Washington case, Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Brown, which the court heard earlier this summer. The state appealed after a federal judge ruled in November that the mission had the right to hire only like-minded individuals—even those in non-ministerial positions.

“Christian organizations have an amazing impact and are just such a support to our society,” said Dummermuth. “And so these religious hiring rights are of great importance to a lot of them.”