In his Virginia Law Review article “Corporate Disestablishment,” 105 Va. L. Rev. 595 (2019), James D. Nelson explores the legal complexities of corporate religion and advocates for clear boundaries between a company’s religious practices and its employees’ rights. Addressing the increasing trend of businesses integrating religious beliefs into their operations–particularly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby–Nelson argues that principles such as freedom of conscience, non-domination, and mutual respect should limit corporate religiosity to protect employees from being coerced into religious practices they do not share.
Nelson, an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center specializing in constitutional law and the intersections of private law and public values, brings a nuanced perspective to this issue. His scholarship often examines how constitutional principles apply within private sector contexts, including the relationship between corporations and religious freedom.
Nelson’s argument gains traction when considered alongside real-world examples. Take Hobby Lobby: the company refused to cover contraception in its employee healthcare plans due to its religious beliefs. Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the corporation, Nelson cautions against such unchecked corporate religious authority. He highlights the potential for corporations to impose their religious agendas on employees, creating environments where workers might feel pressured to conform to religious norms to maintain their employment.
Tyson Foods offers another example. The company publicly states that it strives to “honor God” in its corporate values. While this may seem benign, Nelson would argue that if Tyson Foods required employees to attend religious meetings or included spiritual assessments in performance evaluations, it would cross the line into impermissible corporate religion. Similarly, companies like Chick-fil-A, known for closing on Sundays for religious reasons, prompt discussions about whether such practices in corporate settings affect employees’ working rights, particularly those who do not share the same beliefs.
Nelson also addresses more subtle forms of religious favoritism in the workplace. In some small businesses, especially in conservative regions, religious employees may be promoted more frequently or evaluated based on their participation in company-wide religious activities. Even when religious conformity is not officially mandated, subtle pressures can create a work environment that excludes non-believers or those of other faiths, mirroring the legal cases Nelson examines.
In addition to his legal analysis, Nelson proposes adopting principles from the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and applying them to the private sector. This approach suggests that businesses should not impose religious authority in the workplace, just as the government cannot establish a state religion.