Did former Stockton Fire Chief Ronald Hittle face religious discrimination for attending a leadership conference hosted by a Christian organization? First Liberty argues that, although Hittle attended for secular training, Stockton unfairly penalized him due to the event’s religious affiliation, framing this as a case of religious bias in the workplace.
In the wake of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a law review article by James D. Nelson argues for limiting corporate religiosity to protect employees from religious coercion in the workplace.
Recent debates on employers firing employees for advocacy, such as anti-Israel views, highlight a critical question: Can an employee be dismissed for expressing deeply held moral or ethical beliefs? According to 29 CFR 1605.1, such beliefs, if held with the strength of traditional religious views, are protected unless they cause undue hardship.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision to grant a stay on the religious-liberty training order for Southwest Airlines lawyers reflects a cautious approach to the use of civil contempt power and highlights the delicate balance between enforcing compliance with judicial orders and protecting constitutional rights.
A veteran lifeguard in Los Angeles County, Jeffrey Little, has filed a lawsuit against the county, alleging religious discrimination. The case stems from an incident where Little removed LGBTQ+ Pride flags from his lifeguard tower, arguing that their presence contradicted his Christian beliefs.According to the lawsuit, Little claims he was subjected to a hostile work…
In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court redefines the standard for Title VII lawsuits, stating “some harm” is sufficient. Details in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.
Thomas More Society attorneys will argue against the Biden Administration and Arconic in a case involving religious discrimination against fired metalworker Daniel Snyder.
The Supreme Court ruled in Groff v. Dejoy that Title VII requires employers to show substantial costs before denying a religious accommodation. This clarifies existing obligations and provides consistent guidance to lower courts. Founders’ First Freedom supported this clarification.
A Christian US Postal Service employee in Pennsylvania is asking the Supreme Court to hear his religious accommodation case.
