The General Conference believe that all their employees are representatives of the Church and are responsible for sharing the Church’s faith with the world. It is therefore a critical component of the church's religious exercise that all their employees embrace the Church’s faith, support its religious mission, and share the faith with others.
This is why Plaintiffs’ employment policies have long required all those they employ to be members of the Church in regular standing and to conduct themselves in accordance with the Church’s religious beliefs.
Then why is it that we don't follow this practice?
1. This case is about whether the First Amendment guarantees churches and
their affiliated religious organizations the freedom to ask those they employ to uphold
their religious beliefs, to support their religious mission, and to strengthen their
community of believers. Because our “constitutional structure” prohibits “the state
and its civil courts” from interfering with the autonomy of churches to make religious
decisions, Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High Sch., 101 F.4th 316, 325 (4th Cir. 2024),
the answer is emphatically yes.
2. Plaintiff the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (“General
Conference”) is the highest ecclesiastical and administrative body of the Seventh-day
Adventist church (the “Church”). Plaintiff Adventist Risk Management (“ARM”) is
the insurance and risk management arm of the Church, serving Adventist ministries
around the world.
3. Plaintiffs believe that all their employees are representatives of the Church
and are responsible for sharing the Church’s faith with the world. It is therefore a
critical component of Plaintiffs’ religious exercise that all their employees embrace
the Church’s faith, support its religious mission, and share the faith with others. This
is why Plaintiffs’ employment policies have long required all those they employ to be
members of the Church in regular standing and to conduct themselves in accordance
with the Church’s religious beliefs.
4. But Maryland law now purports to make this religious exercise unlawful. For
decades prior, Maryland courts had interpreted a religious exemption in Maryland’s
Title VII analog—the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA)—to protect
Plaintiffs’ ability to hire only members of the Church in regular standing. But just
last year, the Maryland Supreme Court reinterpreted MFEPA’s religious exemption.
In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, the court held that MFEPA’s provision ensuring
that Plaintiffs can consider religious affiliation when hiring any employees to perform
Case 8:24-cv-02866-GLS Document 1 Filed 10/02/24 Page 4 of 35
5
“work connected with the activities of the religious entity,” Md. Code State Gov’t § 20-
604, only exempts those positions that a court (or a jury) determines “directly further”
the religious entity’s “core” mission(s). 300 A.3d 116, 132 (Md. 2023).
5. Under any reading of Catholic Relief Services, roles like those of a building
services technician or a janitorial manager would now fall outside of MFEPA’s
redefined religious exemption. This means that, for some sub-set of jobs, Plaintiffs’
current hiring practices already are in violation of Maryland law.
