What is the “Ministerial Exception,” and what do Washington religious institutions and universities need to know after World Vision?

Washington religious institutions and universities need to understand how the “ministerial exception” applies to their employment decisions following the August 2025 World Vision decision. The Ninth Circuit’s Aug. 5 ruling in McMahon v. World Vision Inc., 147 F.4th 959, 970 (9th Cir. 2025) provides important clarity on the boundaries between religious liberty and anti-discrimination enforcement, but two other significant Washington cases remain pending, creating both opportunities and uncertainties for religious institutions operating in Washington.

These cases arise from a fundamental tension between Washington law and the United States Constitution. The Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) (RCW 49.60) prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, with limited exceptions for religious organizations. However, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and freedom of association protect religious organizations’ ability to make employment decisions consistent with their religious beliefs. The World Vision decision addressed this tension by clarifying when the federal constitutional protection, the ministerial exception, applies to shield religious organizations from state anti-discrimination enforcement.

First, what is the “Ministerial Exception?”

The ministerial exception is a constitutional doctrine based on the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses that exempts religious organizations from federal and state employment discrimination laws when making employment decisions about their “ministers.” A minister is not limited to a formally ordained person but includes any employee with significant religious duties, like conveying the organization’s religious mission, and the determination of who qualifies as a “minister” is made by courts on a case-by-case basis. The United States Supreme Court adopted this exception in 2012 in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC and has reaffirmed its application since then.

The World Vision decision: Key developments

On Aug. 5, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision holding that customer service representatives at World Vision, a Christian humanitarian organization, qualify for the “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws. The decision reversed a ruling from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington that had awarded $120,000 to Aubry McMahon, an applicant whose job offer was rescinded after World Vision learned she was in a same-sex marriage.

The facts behind the case

World Vision is a major Christian relief and development organization whose mission is to “follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.” The organization operates globally through partnerships with donors, churches, and supporters.

McMahon, an openly gay Christian woman married to another woman, applied for a remote customer service representative position paying $13-15 per hour. The position required basic qualifications: a high school diploma, one year of customer service experience, and proficiency with Microsoft Office. After receiving a job offer, McMahon sent an email asking about time off, mentioning “my wife and I are expecting our first baby.” World Vision rescinded the offer, citing her inability to comply with its Standards of Conduct, which prohibit “sexual conduct outside the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.”

The World Vision court’s analysis

The Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment’s ministerial exception barred McMahon’s discrimination claims because customer service representatives perform “vital religious duties” at the core of World Vision’s mission. The court’s reasoning centered on three key findings:

Customer service representatives as the organization’s “Voice:” Unlike most World Vision employees, customer service representatives (“CSRs”) are the only staff who regularly interface with donors and the public. World Vision described these employees as “the Voice, Face and Heart of World Vision” because they “interact all day with the ministry’s donors, its lifeblood.”

Fundraising as ministry: The court accepted World Vision’s argument that fundraising is not merely revenue generation but “a form of ministry in itself.” CSRs “give people an opportunity to join [World Vision] in the mission of God” through financial contributions and sponsorships. This engagement with donors is itself a form of religious practice and witness.

Prayer and spiritual communication: CSRs regularly pray with donors about their needs and the needs of sponsored children. The court reviewed actual call recordings demonstrating CSRs praying with donors during the COVID-19 pandemic, discussing how sponsored children were affected, and providing spiritual encouragement. CSRs also communicate World Vision’s Christian faith to curious donors and explain the religious basis for the organization’s work.

Why administrative duties didn’t matter

The district court had concluded that because CSRs spent most of their time on secular tasks – answering phones, data entry, upselling programs, maintaining statistics – the position was “administrative, not ministerial.” The Ninth Circuit firmly rejected this analysis, holding that “a position [that] has primarily administrative or secular job duties does not foreclose the possibility that the position qualifies under the ministerial exception.”

The court emphasized that what matters is whether the employee performs vital religious functions in light of the organization’s core mission, not what percentage of time is spent on religious versus secular tasks. Because CSRs are essential to World Vision’s ability to engage donors, raise funds, and communicate its religious mission, they qualify for the ministerial exception despite spending significant time on administrative work.

The limits of the Ministerial Exception

Critically, the World Vision court clarified that not every employee at a religious organization is a “minister.” The decision explicitly states that “secretaries, accountants, and custodians at World Vision, despite having the same religious obligations to attend chapel and bear witness to Jesus Christ, would not qualify for the ministerial exception because, unlike CSRs, they are not charged with conveying the organization’s message to its donors.”

This distinction is crucial: the ministerial exception protects only positions that perform vital religious duties central to the organization’s mission, not all employees who work for religious organizations or who share general religious obligations.

Pending cases: uncertainty remains

While the World Vision decision provides significant clarity, two other major cases involving Washington religious organizations remain pending, and their outcomes will further define the legal landscape.

Seattle Pacific University v. Ferguson (Trial scheduled April 2026)

Seattle Pacific University, affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, maintains employment policies requiring all staff to refrain from “cohabitation, extramarital sexual activity, and same-sex sexual activity.” After then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson (now Governor) launched an investigation into these hiring practices in 2022, SPU filed a federal lawsuit arguing the investigation violated its First Amendment rights.

The case has a complex procedural history. A federal district court initially dismissed SPU’s lawsuit on procedural grounds, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in June 2024, holding that SPU could continue its efforts to protect its religious mission in federal court. The parties have filed dueling motions for summary judgment, and the case is scheduled for a bench trial to begin on April 13, 2026.

Key question: Will the ministerial exception apply to all SPU employees, only to certain positions, or not at all? Unlike World Vision’s customer service representatives, who interface with external donors, SPU’s case may turn on whether university employees in various roles – from faculty to administrators to support staff – can be considered to perform vital religious duties central to the university’s educational mission.

Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Ferguson (Ninth Circuit appeal pending)

The Union Gospel Mission of Yakima runs homeless shelters, addiction recovery programs, and medical clinics. The mission wants to hire only employees who adhere to biblical teachings on sexuality and marriage. In June 2025, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the state’s appeal of a lower court decision that had blocked Washington from enforcing anti-discrimination law against the mission. During oral arguments, the three-judge panel appeared skeptical of the state of Washington’s position. Judge J. Rawlinson noted the courts’ historical respect for religious practice without government interference, stating, “it’s really difficult to use a state law to negate those rights.” However, a decision has not yet been issued, and the outcome remains uncertain.

The legal tension at issue

At the heart of these cases lies a fundamental tension between Washington State law and the United States Constitution:

Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, with limited exceptions for religious organizations. For 72 years, WLAD completely exempted “any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit” from employment discrimination requirements.

In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the religious exemption applies only to employees considered “ministers.” This made Washington’s exemption narrower than Title VII’s federal religious employer exemption.

United States Constitution First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and freedom of association protect religious organizations’ ability to make employment decisions consistent with their religious beliefs. Recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent has increasingly favored religious liberty claims.

Justice Samuel Alito signaled the U.S. Supreme Court’s interest in this issue in 2022, writing that Washington’s approach “could conflict with the U.S. Constitution and warrant review in the future.” Justice Alito warned that forcing religious organizations to hire those who do not share their religious views “would undermine not only the autonomy of many religious organizations but also their continued viability.”

What World Vision means for Washington’s religious universities

The World Vision decision provides important guidance for Washington religious universities, but also raises new questions.

Positions that may qualify for ministerial exception

Based on the World Vision analysis, religious universities must consider whether the following types of positions could be argued to perform “vital religious duties” central to the institution’s mission:

Admissions and recruitment staff: Like World Vision’s CSRs who serve as the organization’s “voice” to donors, admissions counselors are often the primary interface between the university and prospective students. If they communicate the institution’s religious mission, pray with prospective students and families, and help students discern whether the university’s religious identity aligns with their educational goals, they may perform functions analogous to World Vision’s CSRs.

Development and fundraising staff: The World Vision court explicitly held that fundraising can be “a form of ministry in itself” when it involves engaging donors in the religious mission. University development officers who pray with donors, discuss the religious purpose of the institution, and invite donors to participate in the university’s religious mission through financial support may qualify for ministerial exception protection.

Campus ministers and spiritual life staff: These positions clearly involve religious duties, but the World Vision decision reinforces that the ministerial exception applies even to positions without formal theological training or clerical titles, as long as they perform vital religious functions.

Student life and residential life staff: If these individuals are responsible for students’ religious formation, lead devotions or prayer, facilitate religious programming, or counsel students on matters of faith, they may perform vital religious duties central to a religious university’s educational mission.

Faculty in religiously integrated curriculum: While faculty who teach theology or religious studies are likely covered, the World Vision decision suggests that other faculty who integrate faith across the curriculum, pray with students, or serve as religious mentors may also qualify.

Positions unlikely to qualify

The World Vision decision’s explicit limitation suggests that traditional back-office positions remain subject to general employment discrimination laws:

• Accounting and finance staff
• Facilities and maintenance personnel
• Administrative assistants (unless they have significant external communication responsibilities)
• IT staff
• Library staff (unless involved in religious education)
• Food service workers

The critical distinction is whether the position involves communicating the institution’s religious message to external stakeholders or playing a vital role in the religious formation of students.

The importance of documentation

World Vision succeeded in part because it could clearly articulate how CSRs advanced its mission. The organization demonstrated that:

• CSRs were the sole employees interfacing with donors (the organization’s “lifeblood”)
• The position was described internally as the organization’s “voice, face, and heart”
• CSRs engaged in prayer and spiritual ministry with donors
• Fundraising was viewed as a religious practice, not merely revenue generation
• CSRs communicated the organization’s Christian faith to curious donors

Religious universities should evaluate whether they can similarly articulate the religious functions of various positions and whether those functions are demonstrably “vital” to the institution’s “core mission.”

Implications for non-religious private universities

While the pending cases focus on religious organizations, non-religious private universities should also monitor these developments:

Anti-Discrimination compliance: Non-religious institutions must ensure robust compliance with Washington’s anti-discrimination laws. Any employment policies or practices that could be viewed as discriminating based on sexual orientation, marital status, or other protected characteristics carry significant legal risk.

Competitive dynamics: Depending on the ultimate scope of religious exemptions, the legal landscape could affect faculty and staff recruitment. Universities should be prepared to articulate their institutional values and commitments to inclusive employment practices as potential points of distinction.

Accreditation considerations: Accrediting bodies may respond to legal developments with updated standards or guidance. Non-religious universities should monitor whether these cases prompt any regulatory or accreditation changes affecting institutional policies.

Practical steps for all private universities

For religious universities

1. Review employment policies: Assess whether position descriptions adequately articulate the religious functions of various roles. Consider whether policies clearly connect employment standards to the institution’s religious mission.
2. Document religious integration: Develop clear records of how different positions advance the university’s religious mission. This might include documentation of prayer practices, religious formation responsibilities, communication of religious mission to external stakeholders, and integration of faith in teaching or mentoring.
3. Engage legal counsel: The legal landscape remains in flux. Consult with attorneys experienced in religious liberty and employment discrimination law and who are tracking the Seattle Pacific University trial and the Union Gospel Mission Ninth Circuit decision. These rulings will significantly impact how religious institutions can operate in Washington.
4. Foster dialogue: Engage trustees, faculty, staff, students, and denominational partners in thoughtful conversation about institutional identity, religious mission, and the role of employment policies in maintaining religious character.

For non-religious private universities

1. Ensure Compliance: Confirm employment policies clearly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, marital status, and other protected characteristics.
2. Training: Provide regular training to hiring managers and human resources personnel on anti-discrimination requirements and institutional values.
3. Documentation: Maintain thorough records of hiring decisions and employment actions to demonstrate compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
4. Stay Informed: Monitor how the legal landscape evolves and be prepared to respond to any broader implications for Washington higher education.

The road ahead

The World Vision decision extends the ministerial exception beyond traditional clergy and teachers to customer service representatives who perform vital religious functions for their organizations. For Washington private religious universities, this creates both opportunities and responsibilities.

The opportunities lie in potential protection for employment decisions regarding positions that genuinely advance the institution’s religious mission. Universities with clear denominational affiliations, well-integrated religious missions, and positions that demonstrably perform vital religious functions may find stronger ground for defending faith-based employment standards.

The responsibilities include honestly assessing which positions truly perform vital religious duties versus applying religious requirements across the board in ways that may not withstand legal scrutiny. The World Vision court’s explicit statement that back-office employees would not qualify for ministerial exception protection serves as an important reminder that not every position at a religious institution is “ministerial.”

As the Seattle Pacific University case heads to trial and the Union Gospel Mission appeal awaits decision, the next 12 to 18 months will provide critical additional clarity. Religious universities must engage proactively with these issues—consulting legal counsel, clarifying institutional mission, and preparing for multiple possible legal outcomes. Non-religious universities should ensure robust compliance while monitoring how these developments may affect the broader higher education landscape.

The fundamental questions at stake – about institutional autonomy, religious freedom, and equal treatment under law – are important and difficult. The coming months will shape how Washington balances these competing values for years to come.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.