Source: http://faithandthelaw.wordpress.com/advice-corner/
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 05:18:50
Document Index: 533077648

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2000', '§2000', '§2000', '§2000', '§2000', '§2000', '§2000', '§1605']

ADVICE CORNER « Faithandthelaw's Blog
Memo from Liberty Counsel
1055 Maitland Center Commons 100 Mountain View Road
Second Floor Suite 2775
Maitland, Florida 32751 Lynchburg, Virginia 24502
Tel: 800•671•1776 Tel: 434•592•7000
Fax: 407•875•0770 Fax: 434•592•7700
www.LC.org liberty@LC.org
This memorandum of law has been prepared by Liberty Counsel in order to offer guidance to private employers regarding the rights of employees to religious expression, particularly during the upcoming holidays. Liberty Counsel is a national public interest law firm specializing in constitutional law, particularly in free speech, religious freedom and church-state matters. We have presented many briefs before the United States Supreme Court, and we have argued before the High Court and in state and federal courts throughout the nation. Liberty Counsel has offices in Florida and Virginia. We have hundreds of affiliate attorneys in all 50 states.
Federal law, commonly referred to as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits most employers and unions from discriminating against their employees on the basis of religion.
Title VII applies to any employer having fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of the twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Other state or local
2 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1)&(2).
3 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(c)(1),(2)&(3).
4 Religious organizations are exempt from Title VII’s religious discrimination requirement. Thus, a religious organization, such as a church, may discriminate on the basis of religion. A Baptist church may hire only Baptists, and a Catholic church may hire only Catholics. See Corporation of Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987). Title VII does not apply to the United States and corporations owned by the United States, Indian tribes, or certain employees of the District of Columbia, and furthermore does not apply to tax-exempt, private clubs.
5 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2. Part-time employees may be counted as constituting the fifteen employees. See Pedreya v. Cornell Prescription Pharmacies, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 936 (D. Colo. 1979); but see Richardson v. Bedford Place Housing Phase I Assoc., 855 F. Supp. 366 (N.D. Ga. 1994); see also Bonomo v. National Duck Pin Bowling Congress, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 936 (D. Colo. 1979) (federal courts are without jurisdiction to consider a Title VII claim if the employer has fewer than fifteen employees).
laws may also prevent discrimination on the basis of religion, and such laws may apply to employers with less than fifteen employees.
Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon an employee’s religious belief. This discrimination applies not only to hiring and firing but to all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Under Title VII the term “religion” is broadly defined to include “all aspects such as religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) defines religious practice to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. . . The fact
that no religious group establishes such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the
6 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1)&(2).
7 42 U.S.C. §2000e(j).
8 42 U.S.C. §2000z(j). The courts and the EEOC have interpreted this provision liberally. Donald P. Kramer, Validity, Construction, and Application of the Provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S. C. §2000z et seq.) and Implementing Regulations, Making Religious Discrimination in Employment Unlawful, 22 A.L.R. FED. 580, 602 (1975).
individual professes to belong may not set the beliefs, will not determine whether the belief is a
religious belief of the employee. . .” Title VII protects individual religious practices even though
the practice is not mandated by the religious institution to which the employee belongs.10
The EEOC brought suit in federal court against Dillard Department Stores because of its so-called “no excuses” policy. This national department chain apparently had a policy wherein it
would accept no excuse from any employee for not working at least one Sunday per month. One employee objected to working on Sunday because of sincerely held religious beliefs, but the store would not accept the excuse and, therefore, terminated the employee. The employee filed a complaint with the EEOC and, after reviewing the case, the EEOC itself filed suit against the department store. This policy has now been changed. This was a blatant violation of federal law prohibiting discrimination based on religion. An employer must at least attempt accommodation of the employee’s sincerely held religious belief, but this department store refused to accept any excuses.
Once apprized of the employee’s sincerely held religious belief, an employer is required to accommodate the belief, unless to do so would cause an undue hardship on the employer’s business. An undue hardship means more than mere inconvenience. An employer cannot claim that employee morale, as a result of the accommodation, is itself undue hardship. Minimal expense is not undue
9 Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 29 C.F.R. §1605.1.
22 A.L.R. FED. at 60 1-03.
hardship. Undue hardship is determined case by case. The employer must undertake serious attempts to accommodate the employee’s belief.
If you would like additional information or representation, please do not hesitate to contact us. Liberty Counsel offers its representation free of charge.
Sincerely, Liberty Counsel
Visit www.lc.org
Share this:ShareEmailTwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggLike this:Like Loading...	Leave a Reply Cancel reply