California’s top court has ruled that a church-run medical clinic did not breach the law when it fired an employee who was actively working against the religious mission of the institution. The California Supreme Court said in its May 16 decision that religious organizations have a right to define themselves and their religious message—a right that is protected by both the federal and California state constitutions.

At the center of the so-called Silo case was the question of whether a Roman Catholic-affiliated clinic could lawfully require that its employees not undermine its religious mission, says attorney Jeff Berman, who represented a broad group of church organizations that filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the clinic. The court held that religious employers do have a right to protect their religious identity by choosing supportive employees.

Among the groups represented by Berman in support of the clinic were Loma Linda University & Medical Center, Adventist Health, and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, along with a variety of Baptist, Catholic, Christian Science, Latter-Day Saint, and other organizations.

The legal dispute was sparked when the Catholic Healthcare West Medical Foundation fired Terrence Silo, a file clerk, for engaging in on-the-job criticism of the Catholic faith. Silo spent time during work hours spreading anti-Catholic messages among co-workers and patients, said administrators at the clinic. A California state appellate court initially ruled the Catholic clinic had no right to take religious matters into account in making its employment decisions. The clinic appealed this decision to the state Supreme Court.

Robert W. Nixon, legal counsel for the Adventist Church worldwide, has welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the church has long argued that its institutions have a fundamental right to create and preserve a distinct religious environment by hiring personnel who support the mission of the church. This decision affirms that the church “should be free to be the church, and to be about its mission,” says Nixon.

Berman, from the law firm Sidley, Austin, Brown and Wood, says the Supreme Court also rejected Silo’s argument that a religious organization engaging in a secular task—such as running a medical center—is no longer “religious” in nature. The court said that every religiously run entity must necessarily combine some elements of both the secular and religious.