San Francisco Zen Center is the largest Soto Zen Buddhist church in North America. The Center is a religious training institution and offers several different types of programs for individuals interested in learning about and training in Zen Buddhism. Some programs are offered to the general public, while other programs are reserved for those who live full-time at the temple and are part of a residential program.
Residents participate in both “formal practice” and “work practice.” Formal practice includes morning and evening meditations, as well as services, tasks, classes, and events. Work practice includes cooking, dishwashing, bathroom cleaning, preparing guest rooms, and participating in ceremonial tasks. Both formal and work practices are necessary parts of the Zen Buddhist practice. Attendance at formal practice and work practice is mandatory.
Alex Behrend learned about the Center by searching online for volunteer opportunities after he suffered serious injuries in a car accident and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Due to his injury, Behrend could not work in his previous career, which made it difficult to afford stable housing. Behrend continued to volunteer and participate in programming as a non-resident. In 2016, Behrend was given one month’s notice of losing his housing and the Center’s head of practice encouraged Behrend to apply for the residential program. Behrend was part of the residential program as a guest student, and later as a Work Practice Apprentice. He received room, board, and a stipend. For his work practice assignment, he checked guests into lodging, handled and processed payments, prepared guest rooms, prepared conference rooms, and event spaces, cleaned and folded laundry, and answered guests’ questions. Later, Behrend was assigned to the kitchen where he cooked and washed dishes.
In September 2018, the Center reassigned Behrend to the maintenance crew, but that work exacerbated his PTSD symptoms and when he sought employment on another work crew, his request was denied. Behrend alleged that the Center’s course of dealing after September 2018, including demanding he move out in January 2019, was disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He also alleged disparate treatment, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, retaliation, and termination.
The trial court granted the Center’s motion, finding that the Center is a religious organization and that Behrend fit within the ministerial exception. Behrend appealed, arguing that he was not a minister because he performed mostly menial work and did not have a key role in making internal church decisions or transmitting the faith to others.
The ministerial exception is grounded in the First Amendment and exempts certain religious organizations’ “ministers” from certain employment laws. The ministerial exceptions preserves religious organizations’ independent authority to select, supervise, and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities.
On appeal, Behrend argued that the exception only covered those with “key roles” in preaching and transmitting the faith to others.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that there is no rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. The Court of Appeals explained that the role of the Court is to take all relevant circumstances into account and to determine whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose of the exception. That purpose is to ensure the independence of religious institutions in matters of faith, doctrine, and church government.
Here, the Court of Appeals found that the ministerial exception protected the Center’s ability to determine who may serve in its WPA program. Even though the work performed was mostly menial work, there was no dispute that work itself was an essential component of Zen training and, as a WPA, Behrend had a role in carrying out the Center’s mission.
The Court rejected Behrend’s argument that he was not a minister because his role was not key to the Center’s ability to preach and transmit their faith to others. The Court reasoned that if the ministerial exception required an individual to be high up in a religious organization, then cloistered nuns or monks might be disqualified. The precedent did not support this argument, and the Court of Appeals foreclosed the argument that the ministerial exception only applied to religious leaders and teachers. The Court of Appeals noted that Behrend lived and worked full time at the temple as a monk, performing vital religious duties. The Center was, therefore, given the freedom to select, supervise, and remove a minister without interference by secular authorities.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Note: LCW previously covered this case. This case establishes that the ministerial exception does not only apply to teachers and religious leaders, but rather, anyone performing a vital role in carrying out a religious organization’s mission.
Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Ctr., Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17536.