Federal Court Updates
Ninth Circuit: Religious Nonprofits May Require Non‑Ministerial Staff to Share Their Beliefs
|
APPLIES TO Qualified Religious Employers with Employees in AK, AR, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands |
EFFECTIVE JAN 6, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the state’s anti-discrimination law against a Christian ministry in connection with the organization’s hiring of non-ministerial employees.
The case arose after the Mission received an application for a non-ministerial position from an individual who openly expressed beliefs and conduct that were inconsistent with the organization’s religious teachings on marriage and sexuality. Because adherence to its statement of faith is required of all staff, the Mission ultimately declined to hire the applicant and later filed suit, arguing that Washington’s updated anti-discrimination law interfered with the organization’s ability to maintain a faith-based workforce.
As part of employment, the Mission required all employees, including administrative, IT, and operations staff, to participate in prayer and chapel services and to follow its religious teachings. The organization emphasized that these shared beliefs were essential to its internal faith community and its service-based ministry. The Court agreed, holding that, beyond the ministerial exception, the First Amendment’s broader church-autonomy doctrine also protects a religious organization’s ability to require non-ministerial staff to adhere to the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs when those beliefs are central to the organization’s mission.
The Court’s ruling prevents the state from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination against the Mission’s religious-based hiring criteria, confirming that religious nonprofits may rely on the church-autonomy doctrine when making faith-based hiring decisions for non-ministerial roles, when such criteria is tied to their religious identity and mission.
Action Items
- Review hiring practices for compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.
- Consult with legal counsel regarding application of religious-based hiring criteria.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on employer hiring practices and applicable requirements.
Ninth Circuit: Misleading Communications May Render Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Applies to: All Employers with Employees in AK, AR, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands
Effective: JAN 28, 2026
| Quick Look
v Class action courts have authority to deny enforcement of arbitration agreements where they impact the class process. v Arbitration agreements may not be enforced due to an employer’s misleading communications. |
Discussion
In Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that an employer’s communications about signing a mandatory arbitration agreement during a class action lawsuit from employees were misleading, giving the lower court a basis on which to deny arbitration enforcement for class members.
Here, a lawsuit against the employer for alleged wage and hour violations of its California employees was in the process of seeing class action certification. While this was happening, and near the winter holidays, the employer sent two emails – (1) notifying all employees of a mandatory arbitration agreement and requesting that it be signed even though the language of the communication indicated that a signature was unnecessary, and (2) notifying potential class employees that they could opt out of the arbitration agreement in favor of class action participation, but that they needed to sign the opt out to do so. However, the potential class employees had no knowledge yet of the lawsuit or pending class certification, and the employer’s communication failed to sufficiently address this information. There were also two different deadlines for each action.
Moreover, the employer repeatedly disparaged the efficacy of class actions and claimed that class actions are “wasteful, inefficient means for resolving disputes” that “tend to enrich only attorneys rather than the individuals who may have legitimate claims.” Further, the employer inaccurately stated that a class action “requires [the employer] to ignore individual employee issues and concerns.” The communications also said that employees could consult with their own legal counsel but also said they were not allowed to share the emails.
The Ninth Circuit said that a district court in a class action has “the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties,” including to control the opt-out process. The court said that the employer’s actions ultimately sought to interfere with statutory opt-out procedures by changing it from an opt-out process to an opt-in process through the arbitration agreement and through misleading communications sent to employees.
Action Items
- Review arbitration agreements and communications around arbitration agreements with legal counsel.
Eleventh Circuit: McDonnell Douglas Standard Isn’t the Only Hurdle in Discrimination Cases
Applies to: All Employers with Employees in AL, FL, and GA
Effective: DEC 5, 2025
| Quick Look
v The McDonnell Douglas standard of proof does not eliminate the need for a broader “convincing mosaic” standard in the context of a motion for summary judgment. v Even if an employer can show it had a legitimate reason for its actions, a totality of the circumstances approach may cause its motion to fail. |
Discussion
In Ismael v. Roundtree, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that the McDonnell Douglas framework does not necessarily apply in the context of a summary judgment motion. The McDonnell Douglas standard says that a plaintiff must prove their case on its face, which then shifts the burden to the defendant to show a legitimate business reason for their action, and finally allows the plaintiff to show that the employer’s reason was just pretext. Here, the court found the McDonnell Douglas standard to be too rigid in the context of a summary judgment motion, saying that a “convincing mosaic” standard was appropriate under the circumstances.
Here, an employee filed a discrimination claim against his employer, who then made a motion for summary judgment. The district court found that, even though the plaintiff proved his case on its face, the employer met its burden under the McDonnell Douglas standard and granted the motion. However, there was significant additional evidence presented indicating that the employer’s presented evidence was unreliable and that the employer treated the plaintiff differently from other employees.
The appellate court indicated that lower courts should use a convincing mosaic standard in summary judgment, which has its own procedural standard of proof. Specifically, a convincing mosaic standard means “(1) that a plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if he presents circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory intent,” and (2) that a “triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.” The court said that the pretext standard under McDonnel Douglas should not be confused with the convincing mosaic standard that should apply in the context of a summary judgment motion.
Ultimately, the broader convincing mosaic standard means greater potential scrutiny over employer actions in litigation. Although this case focuses on legal procedure, it highlights the need for employers to be consistent in their policy enforcement and discipline and to document their legitimate business reasons for disciplinary action.
Action Items
- Have appropriate personnel trained on employer policies and consistent enforcement.
- Implement processes to consistently document legitimate business reasons for disciplinary action.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase