Thank you, "Original Anna Anna"! Common sense in the midst of legal obfuscation!

Does she presently have ministerial tax-exempt privileges (housing allowance especially)? If so, then the government and the school have accepted her as "ministerial." If not, are there exceptions to ministerial tax-exempt status that would qualify her in that category? That was my litmus test sein teaching Religious Studies at a Christian liberal arts college.

The church cannot have it both ways. if teachers are normally considered laymen, even though they lead prayers and bible studies in a church, then the church cannot automatically declare them ministerial workers when it suits them. If the person was hired as a teacher then the ministerial exception does not apply. Churches need to lead the way in honesty and be honest employers. of course there is way too much information missing from the story to say much more. the organized church sets such a bad example for the unchurched world and it needs to revamp its perspective and get back to biblical based attitudes and actions.

Is she cured? That 's what medical leave is for. If she's not cured, she's a physical and mental danger to those she's teaching. Children don't need to be terrified over and over that this might be the time their teacher doesn't wake up. It's called torture. But a person coming back from medical leave needs a doctor's okay to be able to work or should need a doctor's okay. Otherwise, she goes on disability. If she's "cured" and doesn't fall asleep again she should keep her job. Otherwise, you can start telling people with other illnesses coming back from medical leave, they're gone when the doctor says they're capable of working, like after a heart attack, surgery, cancer treatment, etc., etc., you get the picture. Religion really has nothing to do with it. It's discrimination concerning people with medical conditions who can work especially with medicine, illnesses like epilepsy, etc. although I wouldn't want to take on a full day with the kids of today if it was a painful struggle.

From a legal perspective, the interpretation offered here may well miss the point -- if the teacher is being rejected not for religious reasons/principles but rather for reasons related to her disability, then this case might well be decided on much narrower grounds without addressing the issues mentioned in this article. It is highly unlikely that even this Supreme Court would be willing to accept considerations of her disability as a valid religiously-based objection, and thus the case could be addressed solely on the basis of disability law.