Case law under this last religious schools exemption is not abundant, but in conjunction with the legislative history of the provision, and an example and commentary from the EEOC Compliance Manual, it is clear that Congress intended this provision to be broadly construed, that is, covering all employees of the institution. The legislative history shows that at one point in the debate a member of Congress tried unsuccessfully to narrow the applicability of this provision to the hiring only of faculty and instructional staff.
For more on the legislative history of the religion exemption from Title VII, see Burchaell, James T., C.S.C., Out of the Heartburn of the Church, 25 Journal of College and University Law 653 (1999). At page 690, in referring to the legislative history, Burchaell states: “The legislative history emphatically excluded any interpretation that might narrow this freedom to appointments requiring specific religious qualification, such as chaplains or theology faculty. The right ran all the way down to janitors” See also, Araujo, Robert, S.J., Ex Corde Ecclesiae and Mission Center Hiring in Roman Catholic Colleges and Universities: To Boldly Go Where We Have Gone Before, 25 Journal of College and University Law 835 (1999). This article contains an exhaustive description of the legislative history of the educational institution exemption. Father Araujo points out that Congress intended, by adding this third exemption, to explicitly cover those universities that may be religiously affiliated, but are also operated for the general purpose of educating on a wide variety of subjects. In other words, the university need not be a religious corporation to come under the protection of the exemption.
See
110 Cong. Rec. 2585-93 (1964) for the full debate. The Catholic University of America is mentioned in the 1964 debates as the type of university Congress was expecting to protect from governmental interference.
