Is this considered discriminatory hiring practice (based on your religion)?

Question

I saw this in a job listing at the following link:
http://www.jobtarget.com/c/job.cfm?str=376&site_id=108&jb=2799323

"The Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology at Brigham Young University announces the availability of a continuing status track faculty position in Clinical Laboratory Sciences. Review of applications will begin December 14, 2007 and continue until the position is filled. Applicants should be certified in Clinical Laboratory Science by NCA and/or Medical Technology by ASCP. A graduate degree is required (Masters or Ph.D.). The successful applicant will be expected to develop a strong teaching capability in the CLS program curriculum and mentor undergraduate students.


This is the questionable part:
BYU is an equal employment opportunity employer. Preference is given to qualified members in good standing of the sponsoring church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Seems contrdictory, and illegal to me. Is it?

Yea the link seems to have stopped working, I guess it expired. It was working yesterday and this morning.

Answer 1

It doesn't say that you can't be hired as long as you are willing to be a church member in good standing. But the qualifications for position appear to come first.

Are you saying that you can't get a molecular biology job anywhere else but Utah? Teaching the Mormons is Brigham Young's primary function, so you'd have to be able to accept their faith. Are you also suggesting that non-Catholics should be part of Notre Dame's faculty just on equality issues? I think that's oversimplifying equality.

Answer 2

I am a lawyer as well as an atheist. The primary context in which the federal courts might regard "atheism as a religion" is in cases involving discrimination (in the workplace, etc.), where "atheist" is treated like a religious preference (like "Methodist" or "Muslim" or "Mormon") for purpsose of the Civil Rights Act, which is one way in which the 14th Amendment (applying the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights) is applied not only to prohibit certain actions by the federal, state, and local governments, but also acts by private citizens and companies, etc. that are regarded as discriminatory. So, "atheism" could be treated as a religion in a civil rights / discrimination case in order to allow an atheist plaintiff to sue and to show that he or she had been mistreated, etc. because he or she was an atheist. In the case commentary to which the Asker linked, footnote 6 mentioned the ACLU v. McCreary County case as a Supreme Court decision in which atheism was classified as a religion. Not so fast. That case was one of the two courthouse / 10 Commandments display cases decided by the Supremes recently, and in that case the Kentucky county officials lost. In the several opinions issued by Supreme Court Justices in the McCreary case, the word "atheism" or "atheist" appears only once, in the DISSENTING opinion of Justice Scalia, who has long been out of the mainstream of American federal jurisprudence on the interpretation of the Establishment Clause (one of the 2 "Religion Clauses") of the First Amendment. Not even Scalia claims that atheism is a religion. There is NOTHING in the McCreary opinions that holds that "atheism" is a religion under federal law, and I'd be curious and delighted to see any reported federal court case that holds, in so many words, that atheism is a religion. Rather, what many federal court cases say is that when the federal, state or local government makes a decision or takes an action that hinges on religious differences and either favors one religion over another or favors religion in general over non-belief, an atheist could be an "aggrieved person" who has suffered damage and could have legal standing to sue. As for the core question, should atheist groups qualify for grants of government money under "faith-based initiatives," my answer is NO. Atheists, if they had groups, would not be conducting activities on the basis of "faith," and such groups should neither ask for nor receive government appropriations, government contracts, or government subsidies.

Answer 3

If it is an equal employment employer, than they are telling you from the start that unless you are affliated with their church you will not be given top priority, by your knowledge. I would say it is very illegal. If they where to say they where only hiring from the church, and left out the equal part than I think they could get away with it. Call someone and ask if this is legal.

Answer 4

You'll find that Bringham Young University is a registered private educational institution of the Mormons and as such is entitled to practice religious discrimination in it's hiring policy as it is a private not state university.

Answer 5

I would guess that the University is an arm of the Church, and as such can prefer to hire its own members - after all, you kinda gotta be Catholic to be hired as a priest or Jewish to be hired as a Rabbi.

Answer 6

It may be discriminatory hiring practice. There is a caveat. This is a private university, and if it does not accept federal funds (or other tax monies) it probably should have the right to exercise it's own freedom of religion.

So, you have some constitutional questions---the right to associate at your own choice, the freedom of religion, and the inherent right to be treated equally.

Answer 7

It does sound contradictory to eoe but there may be a technicality that covers them. My husband works for a company that gives preferential treatment for advancement to qualified current employees. I think the key here is that they are "qualified" not just members.

Answer 8

Let's turn it around.

You have a Baptist college, and you have an opening for a teacher, are you going to hire a Baptist teacher or a Mormon teacher?

Answer 9

Um... it's a mormon college that wants mormon professors. What's the big deal? Also, your URL isn't working.

Answer 10

it is. we are sopposed to be free to believe in any thing and not be judged