Introduction

Women today still face gender discrimination in law enforcement and other prestigious career fields. Many people may consider gender bias to be a thing of the past, but the number of recent examples shows evidence it continues to be a problem in today’s workforce.

Women in Uniform

In a mere ten-month period, the police department of Syracuse, New York, lost three lawsuits from women officers claiming to have suffered gender discrimination in the workplace.

1. In 2010, Officer Katherine Lee was awarded a $400,000 verdict in her case against the police department. Lee had served as a police officer for 14 years before she sued the department on the grounds of sexual harassment and adverse employment actions. According to Lee, any time she would report the unacceptable behavior of her male co-workers, which included making sexually derogatory comments and watching pornographic movies in the workplace, her supervisors would conduct “sham” investigations and then punish her for complaining.
2. A jury awarded Sgt. Therese Lore a $500,000 verdict. Lore claimed to have been subjected to retaliation by the city of Syracuse after she filed an EEOC complaint alleging that she was not being treated the same as similar ranking males in the department. Lore alleged that as punishment for making the complaint, Lore was subjected to ridicule by her department and in the media.
3. Syracuse Officer Sonia Dotson was awarded $450. Like Lee, Dotson alleged the males in her department were bringing pornographic material into the workplace. Dotson also claimed she was retaliated against for lodging complaints.

It Doesn’t Stop With Law Enforcement

While some women in police and emergency services careers are being unfairly treated, they are not the only victims. In 2008, Citigroup paid out $33 million in a class-action gender discrimination settlement. Approximately 2500 female brokers at their Smith-Barney unit filed the lawsuit.

In 2007, Morgan Stanley settled a sex-discrimination lawsuit with a $46 million pool. Six female financial advisors who claimed their male peers were receiving higher pay and more promotion opportunities filed the complaint.

Speaking Out

According to an article on Collegiate Times online, the Women’s Center at Virginia Tech in conjunction with the Virginia State Police sponsored an event called “Women in Policing: The Gender Issue.” Representatives from the FBI and local law enforcement spoke out about sexual harassment, stereotypes and physical barriers in the workplace.

Virginia Tech Police Chief Debra Duncan talked about the hard road she traveled to becoming Chief. Captain Kimberly Lettner of the Virginia State Police discussed the additional challenges she felt she was forced to face for being female. The most poignant in her memory were the accusations that she only received her various promotions for being female.

Whether or not change and a better environment for female officers is on the horizon, Duncan offered this sound advice to women contemplating law enforcement careers: “You need to go find a police department and talk to people and do ride-alongs. It’s a commitment and you need to make up your mind to know that that’s what you want to do.”

Sources:

• Syracuse police officer to receive $400K in sexual discrimination suit.
• Federal jury awards Syracuse police sergeant $250,000 in retaliation suit.
• Some female law enforcers face futures of harassment, others discrimination.
• Officer wins discrimination case.
• It’s Nothing New: Male Dominated Professions Foster Culture Of Sex Discrimination.
• Citigroup Confirms $33 Million Smith Barney Gender Bias Settlement.
• Morgan Stanley Settles Sex-Bias Suit.

Maybe you’re thinking, “I got laid off. I don’t have a business any more–or a title. So how can I possibly use a business card?”

Good question. The answer requires seeing past your assumptions about business cards.

Non-business use of a personal card

Everyone understands the need for business cards when making professional contacts on the job–whether those contacts are with vendors, customers or clients, potential customers or clients, or business referral sources. But many fail to see the benefits of handing out business cards to people they encounter outside of the work context, including purely social or community encounters.

It may help to think of a business card as a “calling card,” or “personal card,” that need not be for business use exclusively – or even at all.

Historically, before a card became a “business card,” it was a “calling card.”

It was commonplace in earlier times to hand someone a personal “calling card” as a means of passing on contact details and raising one’s profile. Such a card had nothing to do with representing a particular business. Here’s a nice historical description:

In the 19th and early 20th century, social interaction was a richly cultivated, well-mannered affair. The tool that facilitated these interactions was the calling card. Calling cards streamlined introductions and helped remind people of new acquaintances and needed visits. The calling card also served as a way to brand your social identity.

“Old Country” tradition

My grandfather was raised in a well-mannered, upper-middle-class European family. After he retired and was living in Canada, he had very simple cards printed. They had only his name, address, and phone number.

No company or job title–he was retired.

He traveled a lot and enjoyed meeting people on his travels and then later corresponding with and visiting them. His cards struck me as both snobby and somewhat pathetic, as if he wished he still was working and had business cards–or was still a wealthy Continental gentleman. Now I see that exchanging cards worked for him as a social facilitator, as they can for anyone involved in networking–including job seekers.

Tradition of social calling card revived as “Mommy card”

This “calling card” tradition is re-emerging among parents, who find “Mommy cards” (Daddy cards, anyone?) useful in setting up play dates, carpools, communicating information about children’s food allergies, etc.

No company. No job title.

Who needs a company or job title?

Even those accustomed to using their business cards when meeting people in non-business situations tend to see them as tied to their identity as an employee of a particular business.

When their employment situation changes, they can’t very well use their cards from their former employer while seeking work, so they can’t imagine a way to use a business card effectively in their job search.

With this view of the use of business cards, with the emphasis on “business,” the job seeker’s question about how to use a business card while unemployed–with no business and no job title–is understandable.

I mean, what does one use for a job title? “Job Seeker”? “Still Collecting Unemployment”?

Of course not. Think outside the box. Think about your card as a personal card, a calling card, even a mini-resume. This will help you determine its contents.

You are the company. You are the product. You are the brand. You create the logo and select the design, the colors, the fonts. Be creative and express yourself. Bet you didn’t really like the look of those old cards anyway, did you?

You can either skip the job title or make one up. No, I’m not suggesting dishonesty. When I mean is you can simply use a descriptive title unconnected with any organization.

For example, if you’re an unemployed bank employee perhaps your old cards had one of those nice “Vice President” titles (but an ugly bank logo). You can’t say that’s your title anymore, and you probably don’t want to say “former bank Vice President,” but you can say “Financial Services Professional” or “Experienced Banking Executive.” And if you have an MBA or special certification, you can put it after your name.

Job seeker’s card can include more information than typical business card.

With the growth in technology and communication channels, businesses, recruitment agencies and individuals alike all have to adjust to a new way of interacting.

You should be using at least one of the following social networking sites, and preferably all three, as each can be useful in a job search:

• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Facebook

Make sure your card has your urls for these networks (as well as your email, of course). But don’t forget to scrub your content and set your privacy so that potential employers don’t see something that hurts your prospects.

Using your personal business card in your job search.

Business cards allow you to portray a professional image while encouraging people to contact you in the future regarding services or offers that may be of interest or beneficial to you. They can be of particular use when attending social or professional gatherings and job or career fairs.

These business cards are not restricted to potential employers but can also be handed out to anyone who can help in your job search. As a job seeker, you should be actively networking and attempting to build relationships with industry experts and key trade employees. This can be done through the use of a well-designed and effective business card.

However, in such job-search networking situations, a business card should not be used as a substitute for a CV or resume, but rather as a snapshot or supplement to it. In some situations, even though you’re not applying for a job, it is entirely appropriate to present someone with both the card and your resume. You can even start the conversation with the card and end it with the resume. People remember best what comes first and last!

A sample job seeker business card

I created this two-sided card online. With just a few more clicks of the mouse and a credit card, I could have ordered them!

On this card, you can see several ideas discussed here:

• Design is catchy and memorable.
• Job seeker’s name (“Joe Da Driver”) where company name would normally go.
• Generic job title (Over-the Road Driver) with additional catch-phrase for experience (“Accident-Free Driving Since 1992″).
• Both LinkedIn and email included.
• Back is mini-CV/resume, listing several key qualifications trucking industry employers look for.

Some final tips.

• Your business card as a job seeker should be neat, tidy and contain relevant contact details and, if possible, a list of skills you have obtained through education or previous experience within a sector.
• Your networking card should be used as a mini snapshot of your CV, listing key accomplishments. Create a sleek and professional looking card that you will be proud to share at job fairs, social and professional events.
• If you have a CV online that has been uploaded to a recruitment site then always include on your card the url of the relevant page, to allow easy access and viewing.
• It is crucial to use contact details that are current and relevant. There is little point in handing a potential employer a card with an email address on it that you only check occasionally. After all, by handing business cards out to people, you want to make it easy for people to get in touch with you.
• If you’re looking for a new job while still employed, don’t include contact details of your current employer! Instead, set up a separate email account and/or telephone number that you regularly check to manage your job-hunting communications.

Conclusion

A business card can help to improve a person’s first impression of you. By presenting them with a personalized and professional-looking business card, you are heightening the chance of them calling or emailing you in the future and they are able to put a face to the name; adding a human aspect to the increasingly mind numbing process.

By simply having a business card although you are not employed, you are psychologically creating a more confident and professional image. You’re not just another guy or gal who got laid off, but a professional or expert ___[fill in the blank], who has real value to offer!

Business cards are not confined to those who are formally employed or looking for a regular job. Think of them as networking cards. As such, they are equally useful for the self-employed, freelancers, and even students. A networking card can generate a lot of relevant traffic to your social and personal platforms. It can help a student get an internship or initiate a relationship with a visiting speaker, to name a few uses.

By offering somebody a business or networking card you are seen as offering your services to them, rather than asking recruiters and potential employers to serve you by offering your work. The importance of a well-designed business card should never be ignored. Be creative about the information you include. There is no longer any such thing as a standard business card format, and you can definitely use the back side effectively.

This infographic about recruiting and hiring, entitled, “Jim Gets a Job in 10 Easy Steps,” came to me today from Recruiter.com. It has a simple message, but one that provides food for thought for employers about improving their recruiting and hiring process and for applicants about improving their job searches.

Infographics are increasingly popular. Sometimes they’re effective at visually conveying numerical information, making it more interesting and giving it more impact.

Other times they’re like a good comic book, creating a better sense of “story” than text alone. So it is with this one, the tale of how “Jim Gets a Job in 10 Easy Steps.”

Provided by Recruiter.com.

Some lessons for employers about improving the recruiting and hiring process, corresponding to the ten steps of this infographic

1. Jim can’t figure out what the position does.
   Take the time to accurately describe jobs. You’ll maybe waste less time by getting fewer unqualified applicants and more qualified — and truly interested — ones.
2. It takes 45 minutes to apply.
   Simplify your online process as much as possible. Companies should move towards the example of the uniform college application system. Yes, making application harder could deter the less serious candidates — but it could also deter good ones.
3. He gets automated email thanking him for applying.
   How about promising a prompt review and response if he will not be considered further? Wouldn’t it be desirable to be viewed by applicants as a company that cares enough to do this? Can’t you feel how discouraging it is for unemployed job seekers to be left hanging with no communication (or just unhelpful standardized communication)?
4. Three months go by…
   He had no clue whether he had any chance with this company for three months! How much better had he received a letter saying someone else had been selected for the original job, but his application would be retained for X weeks should any suitable positions open up.
5. Another three months go by…
   What happened in these three months while Jim was nervously collecting unemployment and getting discouraged (or perhaps getting hired by a competitor)? Why the sudden rush? How rude is this? If he gets the job, Jim’s thinking, he’ll probably get rush work assignments this way all the time because the company always waits until the last minute.
6. Jim meets with the hiring manager.
   How about making a reasonable promise to let him know either way — and then doing it?
7. Brief email two weeks later.
   Jim’s wondering what’s going on. First a rush to interview him. Then a positive interview. Then this noncomittal, impersonal communication?!
8. Two months later he calls other manager
   Should applicants be able to bypass the formal process like this? Is it fair? Will it result in the best hires? In complaints about favoritism and discrimination?
9. Interview and offer on the spot.
   On the spot? Is it wise to allow unreviewed hiring decisions like this? Did the manager really have authority to make this offer? Maybe not, but legally he may have had “apparent authority,” which can bind a company contractually.
10. Different offer from HR.
    I guess the manager didn’t have the authority. What kind of morale is Jim starting with? How long will he stay? He’ll probably be one who’s constantly looking for another job. You don’t need those!

Some lessons for applicants, corresponding to the ten steps of this hiring and recruiting infographic

1. Can’t figure out what the position does.
   Don’t waste your time on jobs you don’t understand or that aren’t clearly a good potential fit. You’re much less likely to get hired than if you focus on finding the ones that are the best fit.
2. It takes 45 minutes to apply.
   Streamline your online application process. It shouldn’t take 45 minutes. Of course, you have a resume and cover letter saved on your computer. Customize them as needed — don’t be lazy about this, as it’s especially important if your materials will be computer-screened for keywords! Have a computer file with all the normal application information handy. If you apply in person, take a printed copy with you.
3. Automated email thanking you for applying.
   Keep records of your search. Schedule this for follow up. It could be as simple as making a weekly email folder for job applications to save such emails and then every week go back to the folder from a few weeks earlier and write emails or make phone calls.
4. Three months go by…
   Do not let three months go by! Don’t be a pest, but you have a right to know where you stand. Has the job been filled? If so, are there similar openings? Are any likely? If it hasn’t been filled, what should you expect and when? Are you still in the running? Can you do anything further to help them make a decision? Express your sincere interest, not in terms of your need for a job NOW, but what you can offer the company.
5. Another three months go by…
   Not much to do about this, I suppose. Personally, I’d mention the “prior social engagement” and then if pressed say I can cancel it because the job opportunity is very important. They may reschedule; if not you will have shown you are flexible and have your priorities straight.
6. Jim meets with the hiring manager.
   Ask when you can expect to hear from them. That’s only fair and should not be disturbing to any manager, especially following a positive interview.
7. Brief email two weeks later.
   Hopefully this is AFTER you already wrote a thank you note for the interview, maybe even a handwritten one rather than email!
8. Two months later he calls other manager
   Don’t wait two months. More aggressive follow up after a positive interview should be expected. Still, don’t call every day, but do be assertive and confident and express your interest without seeming desperate. Calling someone else can work well, but has the risk of alienating others in the organization who are committed to an orderly hiring process.
9. Interview and offer on the spot.
   Just because the manager is impulsive — or desperate — enough to offer a job on the spot, that doesn’t mean you need to follow suit. You should be negotiating terms. Tell them you need to discuss it with your wife/husband or something.
10. Different offer from HR.
    Try not to let this experience sour you too much, but keep networking because you may very well be able to do better.

Those are a few of my thoughts on what this infographic offers to employers about improving recruiting and hiring process — and to applicants about improving job searches. Feel free to comment if you disagree or agree or whatever!

Introduction: Supreme Court Case on Ministerial Exception to Employment Discrimination Law

The Supreme Court has now held, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., that a church’s decision to fire a teacher who is a “minister,” rather than just a lay teacher, is within a “ministerial exception” and therefore may not be challenged as a violation of an employment discrimination law.

The Court ruled that allowing such a claim would violate the First Amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It would do so by interfering with an church’s internal decision affecting its faith and mission.

I suspect this decision may be less surprising to employment law practitioners familiar with prior law on the subject than to the general public. As the Court stated, the Courts of Appeals, “have had extensive experience with this issue” and “have uniformly recognized the existence of a ‘ministerial exception,’ grounded in the First Amendment,” precluding application of employment discrimination laws to the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.

The exact parameters of the exception are important, but the decision is not particularly illuminating on this aspect of the issue.

Facts of Supreme Court case on applying employment discrimination law ministerial exception to church school teacher

The EEOC sued on behalf of a former church school teacher, alleging her firing was unlawful retaliation for her threat to file an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit.

The school classifies its teachers as either “called” or “lay.” “Called” teachers, including the teacher in question, are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God. They must complete certain academic requirements, including a course of theological study. Such a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”

“Lay” teachers are not required to be trained by the church or even to be church members.

Lay and called teachers generally perform the same duties, but lay teachers are hired only when called teachers are unavailable. The teacher in question taught math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art, and music. She also taught a religion class four days a week, led the students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, and attended a weekly school-wide chapel service, which she led about twice a year.

The District Court held the suit was barred by the First Amendment. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. It agreed there was a First Amendment ministerial exception, but found it inapplicable because the teacher was not a “minister.”

Supreme Court’s exploration of historical background underlying ministerial exception

This is one of those cases in which the Court reached way, way back in history in support of its constitutional conclusion that both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment bar the government from interfering with a religious group’s firing of a minister.

Cynics might say this reflects a weakness of the intellectual and legal basis for the decision. Why go back so far rather than apply more recent freedom of religion jurisprudence? But those approving the decision surely appreciate the historical analysis as indicating the decision is firmly in line with founding and fundamental constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court’s “history lesson” included these facts:

• In 1215, the first clause of Magna Carta provided that “the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired,” but “that freedom in many cases may have been more theoretical than real.”
• “Seeking to escape the control of the national church, the Puritans fled to New England, where they hoped to elect their own ministers and establish their own modes of worship.” “Colonists in the South … brought the Church of England with them. But even they sometimes chafed at the control exercised by the Crown and its representatives over religious offices.” “Controversies over the selection of ministers … arose in … Colonies with Anglican establishments, including North Carolina.”
• “It was against this background that the First Amendment was adopted.” “By forbidding the ‘establishment of religion’ and guaranteeing the ‘free exercise thereof,’ the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government — unlike the English Crown — would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices.”
• Two events involving James Madison, the religion clauses’ “leading architect,” involved the selection of church “functionaries” or “ministers.” The Court quoted Madison as stating that the “’scrupulous policy of the Constitution in guarding against a political interference with religious affairs,’ prevented the Government from rendering an opinion on the ‘selection of ecclesiastical individuals.’”
• In Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94, 116 (1952), the Supreme Court “recognized that the ‘[f]reedom to select the clergy, where no improper methods of choice are proven,’ is ‘part of the free exercise of religion’ protected by the First Amendment against government interference.” The Supreme Court “reaffirmed these First Amendment principles in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976), holding that the First Amendment “permit[s] hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters.”

Existence of ministerial exception comes across as “no-brainer” for Supreme Court

Having laid out the above historical background and fundamental principles of the religion clauses as they relate to selection of clergy and internal church governance, the Court adopted, with little discussion, the unanimous holdings of the courts of appeal that the First Amendment requires a ministerial exception to the employment discrimination laws, stating:

We agree that there is such a ministerial exception. The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.

The ministerial exception could arguably be limited to a religious organization applying religious standards to employment, such as the obvious one that the individual profess their faith and agreement with doctrinal fundamentals. That might preclude enforcement of laws against religious discrimination, but allow enforcement of laws against other forms of discrimination. But here’s the rub. Some non-religious discrimination is religiously motivated, particularly gender discrimination. The Court noted:

The EEOC and [the fired teacher] acknowledge that employment discrimination laws would be unconstitutional as applied to religious groups in certain circumstances. They grant, for example, that it would violate the First Amendment for courts to apply such laws to compel the ordination of women by the Catholic Church or by an Orthodox Jewish seminary.

Imagine the reaction were the Court to rule the Catholic church must ordain female priests! I imagine there are many both within and without the Catholic church who would welcome a decision to ordain women, but I think most Americans would agree that is a religious matter that should be decided by the church through its established hierarchy and procedures, rather than by a court.

Applying the ministerial exception to a “called” teacher

The next question, and the more difficult one, was whether the ministerial exception should protect the church in connection with the firing of this “called” teacher. Essentially, the Supreme Court found that it should because she was functionally equivalent to a minister.

The Court said, in agreement with every Court of Appeals considering the question, that “the ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation.” It then said it “was reluctant … to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. It thus signaled a narrow ruling that could later be distinguished factually — stating that it was enough that the particular “called” teacher in question was within the exception, “given all the circumstances of her employment” (emphasis added).

Relevant circumstances of the teacher’s employment included:

• The church held her out “as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members,” awarding her a “diploma of vocation” andaccording her the title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”
• As such, she was required to perform her work “according to the Word of God and the confessional standards of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as drawn from the Sacred Scriptures,” and the congregation prayed God’s blessings on her “ministrations.”
• “The congregation undertook to periodically review [her] ‘skills of ministry’ and ‘ministerial responsibilities,’ and to provide for her ‘continuing education as a professional person in the ministry of the Gospel.”
• She had received “a significant degree of religious training,” including eight college-level religion courses, “obtain[ed] the endorsement of her local Synod district,” and passed “an oral examination by a faculty committee at a Lutheran college.”
• “[S]he claimed a special housing allowance on her taxes that was available only to employees earning their compensation ‘in the exercise of the ministry.’”
• She was “expressly charged … with ‘lead[ing] others toward Christian maturity’ and ‘teach[ing] faithfully the Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures, in its truth and purity and as set forth in all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.’ In fulfilling these responsibilities, [she] taught … religion four days a week, and led … prayer three times a day. Once a week, she took her students to a school-wide chapel service, and — about twice a year — she took her turn leading it …. [She] also led … a brief devotional exercise each morning. As a source of religious instruction, [she] performed an important role in transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation.”

Basis for disagreement with Court of Appeals on status of “called” teacher

The Supreme Court next outlined three errors it said the Sixth Circuit committed in finding the “called” teacher not covered by the ministerial exception:

1. The Sixth Circuit “failed to see any relevance in the fact [she] was a commissioned minister.” The Court said such a title does not by itself establish the applicability of the exception, but “the fact that an employee has been ordained or commissioned as a minister is surely relevant, as is the fact that significant religious training and a recognized religious mission underlie the description of the employee’s position.”
2. The Sixth Circuit “gave too much weight to the fact that lay teachers … performed the same religious duties.”
3. “The Sixth Circuit placed too much emphasis on [her] performance of secular duties.” While her religious duties took only 45 minutes a day, “the issue … is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch.” The amount of time is relevant, but “cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the nature of the religious functions performed and the other considerations.”

Concurring opinions

Justice Thomas wrote separately to express his view that more deference should be accorded religious organizations in defining who is a “minister” or the equivalent:

A religious organization’s right to choose its ministers would be hollow … if … courts could second-guess the organization’s sincere determination that a given employee is a “minister” …. The question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature, and the answer will vary widely. Judicial attempts to fashion a civil definition of “minister” … risk disadvantaging those religious groups whose beliefs, practices, and membership are outside of the “mainstream” or unpalatable to some. Moreover, uncertainty about whether its ministerial designation will be rejected, and a corresponding fear of liability, may cause a religious group to conform its beliefs and practices regarding “ministers” to the prevailing secular understanding.

Justices Alito and Kagan also concurred, at much greater length, making several points:

• Because of significant variations in terminology and practices between religions, “it would be a mistake if the term ‘minister’ or the concept of ordination were viewed as central to the important issue of religious autonomy that is presented in cases like this one. Instead, courts should focus on the function performed ….” Therefore, the ministerial exception should apply to “any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”
• The church discharged the “called” teacher “because she threatened to file suit against the church” which “contravened the Lutheran doctrine that disputes among Christians should be resolved internally without resort to the civil court system ….” The church claims her “disregard for this doctrine compromised her religious function, disqualifying her from serving effectively as a voice for the church’s faith.” She “argues that this was a mere pretext for her firing, which was really done for nonreligious reasons.” “For civil courts to engage in [this] pretext inquiry … would dangerously undermine the religious autonomy that lower court case law has now protected for nearly four decades. In order to probe the real reason for [the] firing, a civil court — and perhaps a jury — would be required to make a judgment about church doctrine.

Issues Not Decided and Consequences for Church Employment Decisionmaking

The Supreme Court often states what it has left for another day, as well as what it has decided. In this case, two paragraphs expressly make such limiting statements:

1. “We express no view on whether someone with [the "called" teacher's] duties would be covered by the ministerial exception in the absence of the other considerations. But … it cannot be dispositive that others not formally recognized as ministers by the church perform the same functions — particularly when, as here, they did so only because commissioned ministers were unavailable.”
2. “The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.”

Count on it: those unresolved issues will be litigated plenty in coming years, and eventually a case will probably make its way to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. upheld existing law by recognizing a ministerial exception to the employment discrimination laws. The Court strongly grounded this exception in longstanding First Amendment religious freedom principles. It is clear that the exception applies to claims of types of discrimination other than those based on religion, as Hosanna-Tabor involved a claim of retaliation for allegations of disability discrimination. It is also clear that the exception’s application to persons other than ordained clergy will be decided on a case-by-case, considering multiple factors, but that it will not be limited in application to such clergy.

The following is a guest post by Aaron McDaniel, the author of the Young Professional’s Edge blog (YP Edge).

Through my 6 years of corporate experience I have sat on both sides of the interview table. While being a headache at times, actually conducting interviews has been one of the best ways for me to see exactly what mistakes interviewees my age make but also how those new to the workforce, millennials, come off to those interviewing them.

Characteristics of Millennial Generation Workers

Certain negative words come to mind when thinking of my millennial generation peers: entitled, impatient, cocky and unrealistic are a few among many.

But at the same time there are many traits that young millennial generation professionals bring to the workplace that are refreshing and beneficial: energy, enthusiasm, creative ideas and better engagement with technology.

What Makes the Millennial Generation Worker Tick?

To learn how to interview a millennial it is best to first understand where we are coming from.

Unlike older (and wiser) generations, millennials are used to being praised for every single little thing we do. We have always had trophies given out for participation, not just excellence. We are used to a world where our input is solicited and — like in youth soccer — “everyone plays,” not just those who have proven themselves the most capable.

This type of positive, unconditional support growing up has become very engrained in millennials’ psyche, a fact that will probably come out when you interview us.

It is important to put this in perspective since, as you know, this is not how the real world works.

Now that we have laid the foundation, here are suggestions to help you hire the best when interviewing a young and talented candidate of the millennial generation.

1. Explore their group experiences; not all group members are created equal

Unlike members of older generations, whose schoolwork was generally performed in a competitive individual environment, millennials have grown up in cooperative educational environments where group work is the norm. This has a downside when it comes to evaluating their value as potential employees!

From personal experience, most group members I have worked with have not carried their full weight (yet seem to claim more than their fair share of the credit).

When an interviewee mentions an example where they worked with a group, really dig in with follow up questions to see what their actual contribution was instead of just allowing them to focus on the accomplishment of the team as a whole. Where they an integral member or just someone whose name ended up on the title page of the group report?

2. Set expectations

Especially in a today’s tough job market, you can be choosy about whom you hire. Whether rightly or wrongly (the verdict is still out), the millennial generation has a reputation of not having as strong a work ethic as other generations.

If you are up front and explicit about job expectations and conditions, including hours of work, stress, and difficulty, you can weed out those who won’t be giving 100% all of the time and prepare those you do hire for success in their new role.

An important part of this is letting the candidate understand the culture of the company and that while they shouldn’t expect to be CEO in 5 years, they can gain experience in other areas (depending on the job/company).

3. Ask candidates about experiences outside of work

One thing that marks many millennials is that there is no typical educational and career path; everyone’s story is different.

Outside of class or previous work experience, many have been community leaders or taken a leadership role in things they are passionate about.

Evaluate these in the same way you would evaluate previous work experience. If you are looking to hire leaders, often young people haven’t had exposure to those leadership positions in a corporate environment, but they have in their community involvements. Something as simple as having been a varsity sports captain in high school can be a meaningful signal of leadership ability.

4. Don’t assume you are the only one doing the interviewing — it’s always a two-way street

Don’t forget to be conscious of how you are coming off to the interviewee. You are not the only one evaluating the person on the other side of the table. The candidate is also evaluating you.

I once was interviewing for a consulting job. My situation was a little unique in that I was graduating a semester early (in December) and wanted to start work the following September so that I could travel for a few months.

The partner interviewing me basically said, “Look, most young people say they are going to do big things like travel the world but most don’t do it. So instead, you should come work for me starting this January.”

I had never been more offended. Belittling me and my goals was not a good move, and ultimately I didn’t go work for that company. I did, however, travel to 18 countries over the next 8 months and didn’t start work until the following September.

5. Be a bit of an ego-masseuse

As mentioned above, millennials are used to having their egos stroked by parents and teachers. Make sure to acknowledge some of their accomplishments when interviewing them. At the very least it will make them more interested in the job and the company.

6. Pay attention to the questions they ask

Candidates that have taken the time to really understand your business and the position show you this when you turn the tables at the end of the interview to hear their questions. If they have done their homework and are really interested in the position it will show here.

Don’t get blinded by a high-flyer with great accomplishments who answers your questions well. They may be good at explaining themselves, but if they do not appear genuinely interested in the position or the company then their questions will come off as rote or artificial, as opposed to penetrating and educated.

You don’t want to hire a young gun that is not really interested in the position or just wants it on their resume for experience. Millennials are a whole lot less loyal than their Baby Boomer or Gen X counterparts and will leave shortly after things get boring. (For this reason you should always watch out for candidates that have numerous jobs where they are only there for a year or so. They will do the same thing to you, and all the resources you put into training them will be used at another company.

Conclusion

If you embrace the points outlined, you will be in a position to accurately evaluate a young millennial generation job candidate. You can understand their goals and the skills they bring to the table. Plus you can gauge their interest in a position, since we are all looking for people who want to build a career somewhere, instead of someone who is just making a pit-stop for a year or two.

Aaron McDaniel, (aka “Mr. Business,” so named after winning a male pageant to raise funds for charity) is the author of the Young Professional’s Edge blog (YP Edge). He is a corporate director, entrepreneur, public speaker, community volunteer and avid world traveler. He has experience in sales, customer care, marketing, operations, strategy and business development and has managed over 110 different direct reports and organizations as large as 60 at a Fortune 50 company while founding multiple entrepreneurial ventures and a non-profit all before the age of 28. Read more from Aaron @ http://ypedge.com