A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.
The Supreme Court will likely find that the coach’s interest in free speech and free exercise of religion is more compelling than a potential Establishment Clause violation.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would not be hearing two major workplace religious accommodation cases.
In June, a Florida Seventh-day Adventist school that received state and federal funding fired a teacher because of his sexual orientation.
Today, Founders’ First Freedom, Inc. filed an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to revisit and restore the workplace religious accommodation standard found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The ethical and moral onus is now on religious institutions as they decide whether to fire “ministerial” employees for reasons illegal in the secular world, such as age or the need for cancer treatment. Institutions engaging in this kind of discriminatory tactic will still need to answer to a Higher Source who will not be impressed with their ability to obtain summary judgment. The way for religious institutions to “win” these cases is to avoid them in the first place by taking the lead in treating employees with the highest degree of care and concern.
The Supreme court has decided against hearing a workplace accommodation case involving a Seventh-day Adventist, but hints that it may revisit employer accommodation standards in the future.
The Supreme Court announced today that it would hear arguments in two employment cases involving whether teachers in Catholic Schools can file lawsuits in pursuit of employment non-discrimination rights. The Court has consolidated St. James School v. Biel and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, both on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, which decided the teachers could sue.
On October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving whether the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect LGBT employees. While state laws may provide localized protection, the question of whether the protection extends nationwide has been raised by two employers who have claimed they have the right under existing Federal law to discriminate based on sexual orientation and transgender status.
An update on the status of Patterson v. Walgreen, New York expands statute of limitations on child sexual abuses case, ministerial exception in disability claims, and Sabbath accommodation