Disclaimer: The following does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with an attorney familiar with employment law if you have questions about your particular situation.
In light of recent debates surrounding employers firing employees for anti-Israel advocacy and other forms of advocacy, the question arises: Can an employee be dismissed for expressing views driven by moral or ethical beliefs held as strongly as traditional religious views? According to 29 CFR 1605.1, the answer may be no, unless the employer can demonstrate that the employee’s speech creates an “undue hardship.”
The regulation states that “religious practices” encompass moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. This interpretation stems from the landmark cases United States v. Seeger (1965) and Welsh v. United States (1970).
United States v. Seeger
In United States v. Seeger, the Supreme Court faced the issue of whether conscientious objectors to military service, who held deep moral and ethical beliefs against war, could be exempt from service under the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The Act exempted those who, by reason of their religious training and belief, were opposed to war in any form. Seeger, who did not adhere to traditional religious beliefs but held deep moral convictions against war, argued for his exemption.
The Court ruled in Seeger’s favor, stating that the test of belief in a Supreme Being should be interpreted to include individuals with sincere and meaningful beliefs occupying a place in their lives parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption. This broadened the definition of religious belief to include non-theistic convictions.
Welsh v. United States
The Welsh case further expanded this interpretation. Elliot Welsh sought exemption from the draft, claiming his opposition to war was based on philosophical and ethical beliefs rather than religious ones. The Supreme Court ruled that Welsh’s beliefs, although not explicitly religious, were held with the strength of traditional religious convictions and thus merited the same exemption.
Together, Seeger and Welsh established that deeply held moral and ethical beliefs could be regarded as religious beliefs under U.S. law. This precedent informs the current interpretation of 29 CFR 1605.1, protecting employees from discrimination based on such beliefs.
Implications for Modern Advocacy
Applying this standard today, if an employee expresses views on contentious issues like the war in Gaza, race relations, or gender identity, and these views are rooted in deeply held moral or ethical convictions, they might be shielded from dismissal. However, employers retain the right to argue that such speech causes undue hardship, a term that requires careful consideration.
The courts have long navigated the tension between protecting individual rights and ensuring organizational harmony. As societal norms evolve, so too does the landscape of employee rights and employer responsibilities. The ongoing debate underscores the dynamic interplay between legal protections and the realities of the workplace, making it a vital area of scrutiny and discourse.
—
For further reading:
United States v. Seeger – (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/380/163)
Welsh v. United States – (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/398/333)
29 CFR 1605.1 – (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.1)