Adventist Church Denied Injuction in Hiring Rights Lawsuit
27 June 2025 |
A ruling was granted in this month regarding the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s October 2023 lawsuit against the members and executive director of the Maryland Civil Rights Commission. The church had requested religious exception from the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. According to The Daily Record:
A federal judge last week rejected the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s request for a preliminary injunction that would allow it to hire only church members — and fire people who do not follow church doctrine, such as members of the LGBTQ community.
U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang on June 18 denied the Silver Spring-based church’s injunction request and most of its claims against the Maryland Civil Rights Commission, but allowed some of its First Amendment claims to move forward.
The Maryland Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that employees who did not directly affect the “core mission” of the church, such as maintenance workers, through active ministry.
The Adventists argued the “core mission” rule put them in violation of the law, so they sued to block enforcement. They argued that the rule was vague, that courts shouldn’t get to decide which positions contribute to their “core mission,” and that it caused an “excessive entanglement” between church and state.
The church argues that since all employees of the church are representatives, they are within their right to enact specific requirements.
Judge Chuang four of the seven claims brought by the church, however he stated that discovery was warrented on the other three.
He wrote that “Plaintiffs are in good faith seeking an extension of the law” regarding a First Amendment claim on “church autonomy.” On a claim arguing a violation of the free exercise of religion, he wrote “Plaintiffs have a different interpretation of the law on the issue of the applicable level of scrutiny that is not strictly foreclosed by precedent.”
“Ordinarily,” Chuang wrote, “a court should refrain from dismissing outright a claim asserting a novel legal theory that can be better addressed after factual development.”
