Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Corporation Of The Presiding Bishop Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints Et Al. v. Amos Et Al.

• 1986 • 483 U.S. 327 • Rehnquist Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints et al. v. Amos et al., 1986, revolved around a dispute over religious discrimination in employment practices under Title VII Civil Rights Act (1964). Mayson, an employee at a non-profit gymnasium owned by the LDS Church was fired for failing to qualify for a church-issued certificate verifying his compliance with LDS standards and principles. He sued on grounds that this...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1986
Docket: 86-179
483 U.S. 327
107 S. Ct. 2862
97 L. Ed. 2d 273
1987 U.S. LEXIS 2876
Argued: Mar 31, 1987

Corporation Of The Presiding Bishop Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints Et Al. v. Amos Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints et al. v. Amos et al., 1986, revolved around a dispute over religious discrimination in employment practices under Title VII Civil Rights Act (1964). Mayson, an employee at a non-profit gymnasium owned by the LDS Church was fired for failing to qualify for a church-issued certificate verifying his compliance with LDS standards and principles. He sued on grounds that this constituted religious discrimination. The court ruled unanimously in favor of the LDS Church, stating that allowing religious organizations to employ individuals who uphold their beliefs does not violate the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause as it doesn't promote religion nor coerce anyone into following any particular faith's doctrines or codes. This ruling upheld Section 702 exemption within Title VII which allows religious institutions to prefer employees based on religion without being accused of discriminatory practices.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, Justice William Brennan argued that religious organizations should not be exempt from anti-discrimination laws in secular activities. He believed that allowing such exemptions would violate the Establishment Clause by giving a government-endorsed advantage to religious groups over non-religious ones in secular endeavors. Furthermore, he contended that this exemption could potentially lead to widespread discrimination under the guise of religion and thus undermine civil rights protections. In his view, while it is essential to respect and protect religious freedom, it should not come at the expense or detriment of other fundamental rights and freedoms protected by law.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: Jun 24, 1987
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms