Atheist Claims Harassment in the Military (AP)

Does the military encourage harassment of atheists?  What is there are atheists in foxholes?  This story is a poignant reminder that the rights of all to believe, or not to believe, must be protected.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/atheist-claims-harassment-in-military/20080428092709990001

AP

Polygamy: Where religious liberty ends (Salt Lake Tribune)

Trying to walk the line between religious freedom and societal concerns has never been easy. Some scholars say the line is drawn at polygamy. This article explores that option, but is the line even better drawn at child abuse? What about “legitimate” serial marriages and divorces? This issue may gain some traction in the next few months. Admin

Read the full article at http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8908639

By Brooke Adams,
Peg McEntee
and Jessica Ravitz
The Salt Lake Tribune

For more than a century and a half, Americans have seen polygamy from a distance and through a filter of silence.
But in recent years, the view has become more distinct: a prophet in prison, jail terms for men who marry underage women, a precision raid on a ranch in west Texas. And this is where the social imperative of protecting the young and the vulnerable collides with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
This past week, the raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, Texas, has once again brought polygamy into focus, especially among scholars and legal experts who’ve studied the phenomenon for years.
Marci Hamilton is frankly shocked it had not happened sooner.
“Nobody’s had the guts to do what Texas authorities did,” said Hamilton, a church-state scholar and attorney who lives in the Philadelphia area. “We so often ignore what’s happening to children in religious communities . . . finally a group of authorities realized they couldn’t let it go on any more.”
She has a history with abused children, particularly the sexual assault victims of priests or ministers, and she has no patience for those who argue that the autonomy and privacy of adults is more important than protecting children.

Read the full article at http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8908639

America facing food rationing? (NY Sun)

The New York Sun reported today that the staggering economy is affecting the food supply in America.  Although this may not seem like a religious liberty issue, the amount of freedom we enjoy is indexed by the status of economics and security.  Admin

Here are some highlights of the story – click the link below to read the rest.

 

Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World

BY JOSH GERSTEIN – Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 21, 2008
URL: http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Many parts of America, long considered the breadbasket of the world, are now confronting a once unthinkable phenomenon: food rationing. Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There are also anecdotal reports that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks.

. . .

The curbs and shortages are being tracked with concern by survivalists who view the phenomenon as a harbinger of more serious trouble to come.

“It’s sporadic. It’s not every store, but it’s becoming more commonplace,” the editor of SurvivalBlog.com, James Rawles, said. “The number of reports I’ve been getting from readers who have seen signs posted with limits has increased almost exponentially, I’d say in the last three to five weeks.”

Spiking food prices have led to riots in recent weeks in Haiti, Indonesia, and several African nations. India recently banned export of all but the highest quality rice, and Vietnam blocked the signing of a new contract for foreign rice sales.

. . .

At the moment, large chain retailers seem more prone to shortages and limits than do smaller chains and mom-and-pop stores, perhaps because store managers at the larger companies have less discretion to increase prices locally. Mr. Rawles said the spot shortages seemed to be most frequent in the Northeast and all the way along the West Coast. He said he had heard reports of buying limits at Sam’s Club warehouses, which are owned by Wal-Mart Stores, but a spokesman for the company, Kory Lundberg, said he was not aware of any shortages or limits.

An anonymous high-tech professional writing on an investment Web site, Seeking Alpha, said he recently bought 10 50-pound bags of rice at Costco. “I am concerned that when the news of rice shortage spreads, there will be panic buying and the shelves will be empty in no time. I do not intend to cause a panic, and I am not speculating on rice to make profit. I am just hoarding some for my own consumption,” he wrote.

. . .

Read the full story at:

http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

Testimony of Gregory Hamilton in support of the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786)

April 9, 2009

 

Senator Floyd Prozanski, Chair
Senate Judiciary Committee
Oregon State Legislature
900 Court Street NE S-417
Salem, Oregon 97301

RE: SB 786 – Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:

The Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) represents the constitutional and workplace discrimination concerns of all people of faith in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

We are pleased that House Speaker Dave Hunt is sponsoring the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, and that the same bill passed the House by a 68% percent margin during the 2007 legislative session (see HB 3539-A). This was a tremendous moment for our organization and for all people of faith, including religious minorities, in the state of Oregon. But this, of course, was not enough for this vital piece of religious liberty legislation to become law. We need the Oregon Senate to comprehend its supreme value in helping ordinary Oregon citizens to get a fair shake in the workplace.

This bill narrowly and reasonably bolsters the requirements of employers to accommodate the scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holy days, or for the wearing of religious apparel in the workplace. More specifically, it restores the federal Title VII legal standard involving religious discrimination which originally obligated employers to demonstrate that they reasonably attempted to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of their employees before claiming that such beliefs and practices posed a “significant difficulty” and “expense” for their business(es).

In January 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) encouraged employers, in an official Title VII religious discrimination guideline, to document how and why a religious accommodation posed an “undue” business “hardship.” But this guideline is just that, only a guideline, and thus unenforceable. While the guideline is a helpful encouragement to employers, it essentially leaves employers unaccountable, leaving them free to wave the claim of “undue hardship” like a magic wand without having to define, explain, or demonstrate what that “undue hardship” is to the employee or how it really adversely affects their business in administrative terms or in dollars and cents. As a result, this significantly places people of faith at a disadvantage in the workplace, including potential and unnecessary unemployment hardships of their own. That is why we believe “undue hardship” must be defined as a “significant difficulty” and “expense” and why it will also help relieve employers of so many discrimination claims against them.

From 2005 to 2009, the Northwest Religious Liberty Association has mediated 297 workplace accommodation situations in the state of Oregon alone, and a total of 634 in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington combined. The number of cases that we have mediated helps to shed light on why the number of claims that Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has received and processed has risen during this time period. On the national level, nearly 1,000 mediation claims involved Seventh-day Adventist Christians in 2006, which does not include the thousands of cases involving many other people of faith in this country, including religious minorities, on an annual basis.

The types of cases we mediate typically involve religious minorities who seek an accommodation to worship on their holy days or Sabbaths. This is usually a one-day-a-week commitment backed by a sincerely held religious belief and/or spiritual requirement to observe the Sabbath according to their Scriptures (i.e., Holy Bible, Torah, Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.).

However, it is important to understand that this is not an unconstitutional “affirmative action” bill for religious minorities, even though religious minorities are benefited. [See Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (472 U.S. 703) 1985.] Religious minorities, in the truest sense, involve devout Sunday Sabbath-keeping Christians, as well as respectful Muslim citizens who keep Fridays, and Orthodox Jews and Seventh-day Adventist Christians who keep Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Understandably, this list also includes, Hindus, Sikhs, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Latter-Day Saints.

It has been demonstrated in a couple of recent religious surveys – one conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, and the other by Baylor University – that religious minorities not only make up the fastest growing population segment among faith adherents, but also the largest percentage of faith groups that take their faith seriously.

This partly explains why religious minorities are the ones who often struggle to balance their sincerely held religious beliefs in the workplace with their employers’ or supervisor’s demands—to work on their Sabbath (whether that be Friday,Saturday, or Sunday), or to disregard the religious belief or custom they are required to follow. This is a characteristic that most of our clients share in common.

But they typically take their jobs seriously as well. Please understand, these people do not go out of their way to be difficult employees. Just the opposite is usually the case. They seek to be the best employees, the most competent and skillful, and the most productive. And they often are.

Approximately 75% of reported accommodation cases involve weekly Sabbath days, periodic religious holidays, religious garb (e.g. turbans) and religious grooming (e.g. beards):[1]

 

·         An employer refuses to make an adjustment to a shift schedule that would allow a Seventh-day Adventist to avoid working on his Sabbath.

·         An employer refuses to allow a Muslim woman to say prayers during designated times, or to wear the modest garb required by her faith simply because this is not the standard uniform worn by employees, or refuses to allow an observant Jewish man to wear his yarmulke for the same reason.

·         An employer refuses to allow a devout Catholic woman Christmas Day off, even though one of her fellow employees was willing to substitute for her on that day. (See below for an example of a typical workplace situation.)

 

There are obvious situations and reasons where an employer would find it to be an undue safety hazard to grant accommodations. (This bill does not seek to weaken Title VII protections for employers.)

 

Experts agree that one of the contributing factors to the dramatic rise in claims is the weakness of the accommodation provisions as currently written. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 1977, a case known as TWA v. Hardison (432 U.S. 63), a de minimis (i.e., minimal) standard has been applied. This de minimis standard reinterpreted the federal Title VII provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as amended in 1972, to conclude that employers were not required to demonstrate that they did all they could to accommodate an employee’s religious request(s) before claiming an “undue hardship” on their business. This has allowed for policy-based corporate discrimination to thrive in some quarters of the business world (e.g., John Stumph EEOC case with Horizon Airlines.) We believe this reasoning should be legally amended in Oregon. We believe sincere people of faith—particularly those who prove to be hard and productive workers, are honest and ethical, and devoted to the business mission of their employers—should not continually be forced to choose between their place of employment and their faith.

What about sham claims? The principle objection to providing protection for people of faith in the workplace is that people of faith will increase litigation, and particularly litigation involving sham religious claims.

There are significant financial disincentives to bringing religious accommodation cases and these will not change after Oregon’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act is enacted. Damages in accommodation cases tend to consist of lost wages, which are frequently modest because the workers involved are typically on the low end of the wage scale. As a result, finding attorneys willing to bring these cases can be difficult, and it is highly unlikely an attorney would be willing to invest the time and effort to bring a case involving a sham claim.

In addition, while courts do not examine the validity of religious beliefs themselves, they do examine the sincerity of the individual’s claim. Although there have been thousands of reported cases under the accommodation provisions of Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act and state collieries over the last three decades, until this point, opponents of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act have not identified a single case in which a sham religious claim prevailed.

Oregon’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act provides an incentive to both employers and employees to work out an accommodation if it is possible. This bill does not give employees a “blank check” to demand any accommodation in the name of religion and receive it. Rather, it restores the standard that an employer should reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious needs so long as that accommodation does not impose a “significant difficulty” or “expense” upon the employer. In short, this bill would happily balance the business interests of employers—both small and large business owners—with the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of employees. It is a great bill—a bill that truly represents the best of America’s traditions, religious freedom.

As George Washington once wrote: “In this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws … of the United States.” With this testament from our country’s greatest Founder in mind, and in the spirit of attempting to truly guarantee the Title VII religious freedom rights of all people of faith in the workplace, including religious minorities, the Northwest Religious Liberty Association respectfully urges you to pass this bill in Committee and send it to the Oregon Senate for a vote.

Thank you very much,

Gregory W. Hamilton, President
Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA)

Testimony of Michael Peabody in favor of the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786)

April 9, 2009

Senate Judiciary Committee

Oregon State Legislature

Salem, Oregon

 

 

RE:          SB 786 – Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SUPPORT)

 

Mr. Chairman and Members,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Workplace Religious Freedom Act.

 As an attorney I have had the privilege of representing employees in several states who have sought religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although many of these cases are resolved amicably without the need for judicial intervention, I have also represented employees both in traditional litigation and administrative courts as well as through alternative dispute resolution including mediation and arbitration.  I am currently working as an employment defense attorney representing employers and insurance companies in Southern California.

 

1.       SB 786 provides defensible factors that will aid employers in determining whether to provide or deny religious accommodation.

 

Title VII provides that when the employee or has a sincerely held religious belief, the employer must reasonably accommodate that belief, unless such accommodation would cause “undue hardship” to the company.  Oregon courts construe Oregon’s statutory counterpart, Or.Rev.Stat.  § 659A.030, as identical to Title VII.[1]   

Unfortunately, the term “undue hardship” does not provide consistent guidance to employers or employees. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law vaguely defines “undue” as “exceeding or violating propriety or fitness,” and in 1977 the United States Supreme Court wrestled with the definition and stated that “undue hardship” would be anything that would incur more than a “de minimis” cost.[2]

Following this decision, many employers believed that the Court’s decision relieved them of any affirmative duty to accommodate employees’ religious needs.[3]

The EEOC held hearings on this issue in 1978, and the Commission concluded that the widespread confusion over the extent of accommodation required under the Hardison decision led to fewer accommodations of religious practices, including:

·         The observance of a Sabbath or religious holidays;
·         The need for a prayer break during working hours; and
·         The practice of not working during a mourning period for a deceased relative.[4]

In addition, fewer employers were willing to accommodate the religious dress or grooming requirements of particular employees and effectively denied them the opportunity to compete in the open labor market.

SB 786 is important because in defining “undue hardship”, Oregon can provide clear guidance both to employers and employees in this state.   SB 786, in pertinent part, provides that, in reference to grooming and holy day observance:

An accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the employer for the purposes of this section if the accommodation requires significant difficulty or expense.

SB 786 then lists which factors should be considered in determining whether a request for accommodation would incur a significant difficulty or expense.  These factors include consideration of the nature or cost of the accommodation, the availability of the resources of the facility or facilities involved in the accommodation, the financial resources of the employer, the type of business operations, and safety and health requirements.

 

Thus, rather than trying to make a vague determination of whether an accommodation requires an “undue hardship,” employers are now given a series of reasonable factors to consider when deciding whether to accommodate or deny a request. If questions about the propriety of the decision arise later, employers will be able to provide defensible evidence of why they made a particular decision.

2.       The term “significant difficulty or expense” provides a reasonable approach that meets a variety of business situations.

The term “de minimis” is a judicial interpretation of the amount of employer-level inconvenience that is required to meet Title VII’s “undue hardship” standard in order to avoid a particular accommodation.  The term “de minimis” should not be confused with “undue hardship.” 

In drafting legislation of this nature, the key is to find language that is specific enough to avoid ambiguity that would permit employers to completely avoid attempt at accommodation as some currently do, yet broad enough to fairly address Oregon’s diverse business situations.  The term “significant difficulty and expense” with SB 786 meets this goal. 

It would be difficult to become more specific without inserting a particular percentage or dollar figure that would unfairly affect smaller businesses.  Determining whether an accommodation requires “significant difficulty or expense” does require some form of judgment call, but when analyzed through the factors in SB 786, it provides clarity lacking in the current “undue hardship” language.

This is beneficial on a practical level.  What does “undue” mean?  Many human resources professionals would not be able to give a clear answer.  But “difficulty” or “expense”?  They can picture that.  

SB 786 provides a simple two-part analysis for employers who simply have to ask whether it is too hard to accommodate a request, or whether it is too costly. 

 In contrast, the current term “de minimis” places the bare minimum floor of responsibility on every employer, thus a multi-billion dollar corporation could apply the same standard as a local specialty manufacturer.  Many employers interpret “de minimis” as meaning they don’t have to do anything or even pretend to make an attempt.  SB 786 fixes this problem.

3.        SB 786 will encourage employers and employees to amicably resolve accommodation disputes while discouraging litigation. 

There are few attorneys who specialize in litigation religious accommodation claims, and those who do often are employed by non-profit or governmental organizations that fund the litigation process as a matter of preserving the integrity of the accommodation provisions of anti-discrimination laws.

Private firms rarely specialize in religious accommodation law because the fees are typically limited to a percentage of lost income.  Such litigation is costly to both sides.  Although employers have the legal burden of demonstrating that such accommodation is not possible, in practice, employers’ current reliance on the de minimis standard leads them to provide very little justification for the decision to deny accommodation. The plaintiff then must conduct extensive discovery through multiple depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents, forensic accounting, and other methods to determine what possibilities for accommodation actually existed. It is not unusual for the costs of  promulgating or defending such discovery to eclipse the potential recovery.

Employers who have followed the SB 786 analysis will be able to defend their decisions and to present more compelling arguments for denial or accommodation than simply claim that they refused accommodation because it would present an “undue hardship.”  Employers who analyze a request under SB 786 may also find that they are indeed able to accommodate an employee and will be able to defend the decision to accommodate.

Plaintiff attorneys will also be able to assess the potential value of cases based on the credibility of an SB 786 analysis in deciding whether or not to undertake legal representation.

In those cases that do go forward to the trial level, judges and juries will be able to reach more consistent results as the facts are analyzed through the framework of SB 786.  It will also encourage early settlement as factors are evaluated.

Ultimately, SB 786 will encourage employees and employers to develop and participate in reasonable approaches to accommodation.

Conclusion

In clarifying the obligations of employers to reasonably accommodate their employees’ religious practices, and providing reasonable expectations to employers, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act will act to bring employees and employers to the table. The true mark of this bill’s success, when it becomes law, will be if there is less, not more, litigation over accommodation of religious practice.

 

Talking Points SB 786 – Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

GENERAL Talking Points

 

Federal Religious Accommodation Law

 

Defining terms: “Undue hardship.” Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972, requires employers to “reasonably” accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless, by so doing, the employer would incur an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”[1] The act itself does not define the term “undue hardship.”

 

With scant legislative history to build upon, the Supreme Court found that undue hardship means anything above a de minimis, or minimal, cost or inconvenience.[2]  By so doing, the Court greatly reduced the impact of the accommodation provision so that the dissenting justices, Brennan and Marshall, considered it “effectively nullifying it.” Additionally, some district and circuit courts have interpreted the Title VII standard fulfilled even when a proposed accommodation does not remove the conflict between the employer’s requirement and the faith practice in question. A good example of partial accommodations are offers to give half days off to people of faith whose faith tradition teaches they are to rest from secular labor on a given holy day.[3]

 

Three primary reasons people of faith find themselves in need of accommodation:

 

·         First, the economy increasingly operates on a 24 hour, 7 day a week schedules. This schedule necessarily conflicts with people of faith who celebrate particular holy days, whether it is a weekly Sabbath or annual holy days.

 

·         Second, due largely to changes in immigration patterns, we are an increasingly religiously diverse society, and our religious diversity now exists in parts of the nation that were largely religiously homogenous up until relatively recent times. In the case of religious practice, unfamiliarity may breed contempt or at least intolerance. Intolerance towards non-western religions may be exacerbated by the overlap between religious practice and race, ethnicity and national origin.

 

·         Third, America is becoming an increasingly materialistic society, in which our other interests, including our family life, our environment, and even our spirituality are becoming subordinated to our mercantile drive.

 

Whatever the driving factor behind religious discrimination claims, individuals contact Northwest Religious Liberty Association with religious discrimination concerns every week. Over the last three years we have helped to mediate over 120 cases involving religious accommodation needs.

 

Types of cases. Approximately 75% of reported accommodation cases involve weekly Sabbath days, periodic religious holidays, religious garb (e.g. turbans) and religious grooming (e.g. beards):[4]

 

·         An employer refuses to make an adjustment to a shift schedule that would allow a Seventh-day Adventist to avoid working on his Sabbath.

 

·         An employer refuses to allow a Muslim woman to wear the modest garb required by her faith simply because this is not the standard uniform worn by employees, or refuses to allow an observant Jewish man to wear his yarmulke for the same reason.

 

·         An employer refuses to allow a devout Catholic woman Christmas Day off, even though one of her fellow employees was willing to substitute for her on that day.

 

Potential Pitfalls

 

What protections are there to ensure that employees do not make sham religious claims?

 

Principle objections: increased litigation and sham claims. There are two principle objections to providing protection for people of faith in the workplace. First, there are concerns that protection for people of faith will increase litigation, and particularly litigation involving sham religious claims. Second, there is concern that it will burden third parties.

 

            Weak provision of the law. Experts in the area employment law agree that one of the contributing factors to religious discrimination claims is the weakness of the accommodation provisions as currently understood. Under the current law there is little incentive for a recalcitrant employer to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees. This does not deter people of faith in the workplace asserting their rights, however, because many of them are unwilling to compromise their conscience no matter what the legal ramifications might be.

 

            Needed incentive. WRFA provides an incentive to both employers and employees to work out an accommodation if it is possible. The vast majority of America’s employers value the religious diversity of their workforce and already do this. WRFA will provide an added incentive to recalcitrant employers to do the right thing before a case results in litigation. WRFA is written to provide additional clarity and thereby reduce misunderstandings.

 

            Financial disincentives. There are significant financial disincentives to bringing religious accommodation cases and these will not change after WRFA is enacted. Damages in accommodation cases tend to consist of lost wages, which are frequently modest because the workers involved are typically on the low end of the wage scale. As a result, finding attorneys willing to bring these cases can be difficult, and it is highly unlikely an attorney would be willing to invest the time and effort to bring a case involving a sham claim.

 

            Sham claims. In addition, while courts do not examine the validity of religious beliefs them-selves, they do examine the sincerity of the individual’s claim. Although there have been thousands of reported cases under the accommodation provisions of Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act and state collieries over the last three decades, until this point, opponents of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act have not identified a single case in which a sham religious claim prevailed. (See above for more.)

 

            Rights of customers or other employees. There is also little reason to believe WRFA will burden the rights of customers or other employees (third parties). Employers are not required to accommodate religious practices if by so doing, a significant burden on the employer would be created. No reasonable reading of the standard would result in customers being denied products or services, or fellow employees being harassed. Indeed, if WRFA was a license to harass, many of its most prominent supporters who represent religious minorities would be its most vocal opponents.

 

In conclusion, for practical financial reasons it is difficult to find an attorney to litigate religious accommodation claims, let alone claims for sham claimants, and courts are empowered to enquire into the sincerity of plaintiff’s religious claims and have effectively done so for three decades.

 

Conclusion

 

Additional challenges for employees who have been discriminated against because of religion. It is frequently low paid and poorly educated workers who find their employers unwilling to accommodate their religious beliefs. These workers often have skills suited only to industries in which virtually all employers maintain similar practices, and thus changing employers provides no relief. In addition, finding a new employer can be exceedingly difficult, particularly in times of recession. Some employees are tied to a specific location where there is a limited pool of employers, and thus changing employers is very difficult. In addition, sometimes employees cannot afford the disruption in health-care benefits and similar benefits that frequently accompanies transition between employers.

 

Loss of employment. But even if these exigent circumstances are not present, losing employment is not an insignificant event. Loss of a job can have significant and lasting impact on a person emotionally, financially, and in their relationships. In recognition of this, our laws have been crafted carefully to protect the disabled, for example, from dismissal without efforts being made to accommodate their needs. It is not too much to ask from a nation founded on the principles of religious freedom for people of faith to be accorded the same respect.

 

 

Addendum:

 

Example of Typical Workplace Mediation Scenario:

“In 2006 you requested and were granted time off for religious observances. It was determined that it would be a “reasonable accommodation” to allow you to not work from sun down on Friday until sun down on Saturday as this is defined as your belief of a Sabbath and as such your faith does no [sic] allow to work on the Sabbath.  However, it was stated and you verbally agreed that those weekends when off-site sales were held created an “undue hardship” as all sales personnel were required to work those weekends as sales personnel were needed both at the dealership and the off-site sale. On Feb. 16-19, 2007 we held an off-site sales event and you failed to report to work on that Saturday.”

 

Company’s Statement to Employee:

“This Record of Discussion is to document that __________ requested and has been granted time off each weekend from sun down Friday to sun down Saturday as a reasonable accommodation for his religious observances. However, those weekends when off-site sales events are hosted, no time off is given to any sales employee. Business does not allow any sales personnel time off during these events and it constitutes an “undue hardship” and time for religious observances will not be granted. Signed:  Employer          Signed:  Employee“

 

 

Amendment Proposal Affecting ORS 342.650:

 

The Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) approves of SECTION 4 affecting ORS 342.650:

 

“A school district, education service district or public charter school does not commit an unlawful employment practice under ORS chapter 659A by reason of prohibiting a teacher from wearing religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher, [amended language begins here] unless such religious dress is disruptive to the school environment.”

 

This language is necessary because it merely acknowledges existing Oregon statutory law that permits religious dress in the Oregon public school arena unless such religious dress is deemed to be disruptive. Thus, we agree to the principle of strengthening this SECTION in order to avoid unnecessary and potential constitutional challenges to SB 786. This was the original intent of former Senator Brad Avakian’s amendatory language during our bill attempts in 2007 with HB 3539-A.

Economic interdependency quiets voices against Chinese human rights abuses

By Michael D. Peabody

Last week as it circled the globe, protesters chased the Olympic flame as it traveled to Beijing. That China has been involved in human rights abuses and untoward activities in Tibet is a fact, and a boycott of the Olympics would certainly send a signal to the authorities that the world is paying attention. But as far as having a lasting financial impact, it would be a drop in the bucket when compared with the sheer volume of trade with China that takes place every single day.

Although the Soviet Union was demonized as the Evil Empire because it pointed nuclear missiles at the United States and threatened to turn our country into a ditch, up until the last few months as politicians have begun to grasp the value of speaking out about the issue, China has escaped much of our scrutiny most likely because of its business acumen and our flat-out dependence on it. Face it – almost everything is made in China these days. Even the computer mouse that went out of control and accidentally deleted this paragraph the first time I wrote it was made in China.

Normally, I don’t like to think too hard about the person who fastened the screws that hold it together or glued the little pads on that help it slide around. If the stories coming out of China are correct, it was probably made by a sweat-shop employee who earns a few cents a day and is treated like a slave, an actual slave, or a prisoner, so that I could buy it for $5.95 (after a rebate I never received) and still give Best Buy a healthy profit. Same goes for my phone and this computer. Even my Canadian-made shirt would fall off without its Chinese-made buttons. If I were to suddenly boycott all my stuff that was made in China by people living under less-than-favorable conditions, I would probably be forced to wear an American-made barrel. So would you.

According to the Financial Times, China has had the world’s largest economy for 18 of the past 20 centuries.[1] China represented a full 33% of the world’s gross domestic product as recently as 1820. It has only been in the last 100 years that the United States overtook China’s economy as a function of the industrial revolution and possibly the onset of communism, and this period may be viewed as an anomaly if current trends continue.

It is well-known that the communist government of China has enslaved, tortured, and killed political dissidents, including Christians, Buddhists, and everybody else who has questioned the regime. China has severely limited freedom of speech to the point where, according to Reporters Without Borders, at least 30 journalists and 50 bloggers have been thrown in jail for what they have written. In fact, if I was living in China and published this, I would probably get a strict talking-to by the local officials. And if a person in China decided to print out this page and pass it around, they could be arrested.

So does China deserve to host the Olympics? Ask Ye Guozhu, the leader of the human rights protests in China. Of course, you’ll have to wait a while to do so since he’s currently serving a four-year prison sentence, has limited access to his own attorney, and can only dream about seeing his family.

Whether or not a boycott would achieve a positive result for human rights in China is a matter of debate. If it worked, then human rights problems could be significantly reduced as Chinese authorities recognized the errors of the ways. Most likely, they would respond by increasing penalties against those who dared to report the problem, and stifle communications with the rest of the world.

Culpability for the current state of affairs in China is not limited to China, but also to those countries which opened vast arenas of trade without any concurrent requirement that human rights be upheld. In fact, the disparity has lowered the prices of Chinese goods that are almost impervious to changes in the value of the dollar, and we fill our closets with items made by people who have been denied their basic human rights.

We used to think that free trade with China would lead to an improvement in the human rights situation, but this has not been working. While we have seen a shift away from socialism to nationalist capitalism, the authoritarian component has remained the same. As a nation, we are locked into trade with China, and indeed are in debt to them to the tune of billions of dollars. Thus, the responsibility of effecting change is unlikely to ever be borne by this nation, however, as an individual consumer you do have the choice to effect a positive change in China, and you can vote with your wallet.

If you’re reading this, you are probably already opposed to torture and slavery and you might have even been one of the protestors along the route. You may want to see the United States boycott the Olympics. But what about trade with China? Are you willing to buy only items made by reasonably compensated people and companies that refuse to take economic advantage of limited human rights?

I’m realizing that this is probably sounding a lot like a sermon, so like any good sermon, it’s time to ask for a commitment – The Olympics are largely symbolic, our dollars speak in real terms. My friends, it is one thing to complain about the Olympics being held in that land of persecution and torture, but odds are, like me, you will not be attending or otherwise be contributing in a significant manner. We know that the total money spent during the Olympics will only be a trickle compared with the daily oceans of commerce, yet continue to feed this dragon that has little to no regard for basic human rights? Brothers and sisters, the time has come to ask this important question, what are we going to do about China?

Michael D. Peabody is an employment law attorney in California who frequently writes on Constitutional Law topics.

Film Review – “Expelled” – Darwin’s Kool-Aid (CFP)

I’ve been seeing the Google-generated ad on this site for several days now, and finally decided to learn more about Ben Stein’s new film “Expelled.” Frankly, it looks compelling and I hope to see it soon. This is a good overview of the film and it’s potential impact – academic freedom goes both ways. Are science professors who question Darwin losing their jobs? (Film Trailer attached)

Read more

Wall of silence broken at Minnesota’s Muslim public school

A Minnesota columnist reports on her visit to a “Muslim public school” in Minneapolis. It will be interesting to see whether the school survives constitutional scrutiny.

Recently, I wrote about Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights. Charter schools are public schools and by law must not endorse or promote religion.

Evidence suggests, however, that TIZA is an Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers.

TIZA has many characteristics that suggest a religious school. It shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, whose mission is “establishing Islam in Minnesota.” The building also houses a mosque. TIZA’s executive director, Asad Zaman, is a Muslim imam, or religious leader, and its sponsor is an organization called Islamic Relief.

Read more at http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html

 

The New Blue Laws – Slate.com

Slate contributor and labor union attorney, Paul L. Edenfield, asks the questions as to workers have the right to have Sundays off. This may be the forerunner of additional trends in this area:

The New Blue Laws
They’re about giving workers a break, not forcing church attendance.
By Paul L. Edenfield
Updated Monday, April 7, 2008, at 7:39 AM ET

Do workers have a right to Sundays off?
In a recent night-shift ad, Hillary Clinton promised that she would work hard to help workers who toil after hours. Barack Obama, for his part, has issued a call for relief for people “juggling work and parenting.” The candidates’ concern about the demands of employment comes at a time when businesses increasingly try to stay open for most of the hours of the day, seven days a week. While keeping our shopping malls abuzz, these frenetic routines also make it harder for workers to get the weekend off to relax or spend time with their families. The ramped-up pace is due in part to the success businesses have had in attacking laws that improve workers’ lives—like mandatory-closing laws, which require many stores to close on Sundays or holidays.

Mandatory-closing laws sound, yes, like another name for “blue laws,” the Colonial-era restrictions in the name of morality that also closed stores on Sunday (and even banned frivolous dress). Their original purpose was to encourage church attendance. Because of this history, these laws are often still thought of as paternalistic intrusions that impose one Christian version of morality. It doesn’t help that they had a brief resurgence during the teetotaling era of Prohibition, courtesy of the temperance movement. But mandatory-closing laws have since shed their old cloak and taken on a new purpose: protecting the interests of workers who otherwise could not rely on a regular, guaranteed day off.

Read more at http://www.slate.com/id/2188240/

Next Page »