Reference no: EM13741437

World Vision Inc. describes itself as a "christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice." Spencer and Hulse had both worked for World Vision for approximately ten years. Spencer provided various services related to the upkeep and maintenance of the organizations technology and facilities, and Hulse was responsible for miscellaneous office tasks, such as scheduling and telephone coverage. Youngberg worked for World Vision for almost two years, his duties included coordinating, shipping and facilities needs as well as scheduling. When they were hired, Spencer, Hulse, and Youngberg submitted required personal statements describing their relationship with Jesus Christ. All Acknowledged their "agreement and compliance" with World Vision's Statement of Faith, Core Values, and Mission Statement. In 2006, World Vision managers discovered that all three of the employees denied the deity of Jesus Christ and disavowed the doctrine of the Trinity. This was incompatible with World Vision's doctrinal beliefs, specifically, the belief that "there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All three of the employees were fired. The employees filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that their firings were in violation of the Title VII's prohibition on employment discrimination based on religion, and ultimately filed suit against World Vision, alleging discrimination in the violation of Title VII. In response, World Vision filed a motion to dismiss the suit, claiming that it was a "religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of the individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such (entity) of its activities and was therefore subject to the 702 (a) exception to Title VII's prohibition on religious discrimination. How should the court rule on World Vision's motion? What factor's should the court consider when making its decision? Explain your answer. (Spencer V. World Vision)