The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District has ruled that World Vision, a Christian humanitarian organization, was justified in its decision to rescind a customer service job offer from a woman in a lesbian marriage in 2021.

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse were among several organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of World Vision.

According to the ruling, a ministerial exception upholds the rights of religious organizations to hire employees who share their beliefs if the position is responsible for “vital religious duties” that carry out the “core mission” of the organization. 

The court concluded that World Vision’s core mission is to “bear witness to Jesus Christ through acts of service, which include support for children, people affected by conflict, and the poor.” The organization partners with churches, donors and others through prayer and ministry. 

Aubry McMahon of Union County, North Carolina, filed a complaint in federal district court in Washington State against World Vision in July 2021 after the organization took back a job offer for a remote donor and customer service representative trainee position. After she received the offer, McMahon emailed World Vision to inquire about maternity leave. 

“My wife and I are expecting our first baby in March and I wanted to see if I would qualify for any time off for this since I’ll be a new employee,” she wrote in the email, according to her complaint filed in district court. “I will be the one having the baby so I just wanted to check to see if any time would be allowed off.” 

She had not previously mentioned her marriage or pregnancy. A short time after her email, the organization rescinded the job offer. 

The district court initially ruled in favor of McMahon, but the Ninth Circuit panel reversed that ruling on Tuesday, saying the lower court erred by rejecting World Vision’s ministerial exception defense. The appeals court agreed that customer service representatives are responsible for conveying the organization’s message to donors, praying with them and encouraging them to participate in its religious mission through contributions. 

The ministerial exception bars McMahon’s employment discrimination claims because the record shows that customer service representatives perform key religious functions central to World Visions mission. 

The amicus brief filed by BGEA and Samaritan’s Purse pointed out: “Many religious organizations, like BGEA and Samaritan’s Purse, have a sincere belief that their mission is best accomplished by hiring employees who are, in belief and conduct, faithful to the organization’s religious doctrines and purpose. Whether custodian, landscaper, IT programmer, attorney, or accountant, each and every employee plays a critical role in carrying out the religious beliefs and mission of that organization.” 

There are innumerable ways in which a shared belief in every position within the organization is vital, the brief said. “For employees to faithfully walk in a manner worthy of their calling to advance the mission, reflecting the Christian ethos before ministry colleagues, beneficiaries, volunteers, donors, vendors, guests, and the community at large is essential. … Forcing religious organizations to hire employees who may openly disagree with their religious beliefs would create a chilling effect and hinder the effectiveness of religious organizations.”