Dodge v. Salvation Army (1989)
Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Background Information
Jamie Kellam Dodge worked for the Salvation Army in its Domestic Violence Shelter as the Victims Assistance Coordinator. She also worked for the Salvation Army prior to this on a part-time basis; when first starting at that position, she had informed them that she was a Catholic. Every year she was required to sign a statement to the effect that she understood the Salvation Army's personnel policies and that she would adhere to them.
Among these policies was the promise not to discriminate based on race, color, creed, sex, age, national origin or physical handicap. An exception is made, however, with regards to religion as required by the religious mission of the organization. According to the Salvation Army's mission statement:
The motivation of the organization is love of God and a practical concern for the need of humanity. This is expressed by a spiritual ministry, the purposes of which are to preach the Gospel, disseminate Christian truths, supply basic human necessities, provide personal counseling and undertake the spiritual and moral regeneration and physical rehabilitation of all persons in need who come within its sphere of influence regardless of race, color, creed, sex or age.
In 1987 Jamie Dodge was seen using the copy machine for what turned out to be personal rather than professional reasons: she was copying material related to paganism and Wicca. When confronted Dodge admitted to using the copy machine for personal reasons and, in addition, that she was Wiccan. She was told that she was mentally ill and, later that same day, terminated because of her religious affiliation. Although she soon thereafter returned to Christianity and rejected paganism, she decided to file suit against the Salvation Army in order to make a stand for religious liberty. The Salvation Army in turn argued that, as a religious corporation, they are exempt from laws which prohibit religious discrimination.
Court Decision
On January 9, 1989, the U.S. District Court of Biloxi, Mississippi ruled that the Salvation Army's actions constituted illegal and unconstitutional discrimination. Judge Russell agreed that, in principal, the Salvation Army is normally excempt from employment anti-discrimination laws. However, in this instance matters changed because it was revealed that "the plaintiff's position was funded substantially, if not exclusively by government sources."
Because of the existence of such heavy government funding, it was appropriate for the Court to apply the Lemon Test; in doing so, it was found that the termination of Dodge constituted a violation of the second prong - goverment activity and funding had essentially advanced religion.
The Salvation Army tried to argue that Dodge's termination was not simply because of her religion but also because of her use of business resources for personal use, something with Dodge never denied. Although the court agreed that this happened, it was not considered credible that Dodge would have still been terminated had she been copying something else entirely. Thus, while she did violate one aspect of their policies, it was held that her termination was based solely upon her religious affiliation.
Significance
This ruling is very relevant to the efforts to provide more government funding to religious organizations - the so-called "faith based funding" which religious conservatives would like to see increased. When the government starts to provide money to religious groups, what sort of accountability and responsibility will there be? Other organizations have to abide by federal regulations, including antidiscrimination laws, when they accept government money. Will religious groups have to do the same? Will religious groups have to choose between the discrimination they are used to having and the government money they would like to receive? Or will the legislators permit religious groups to discriminate based upon religion, gender, race, and sexual orientation with funding provided by the people who bear the brunt of that discrimination?
-->