Legal Document

480 U.S. 136 107 S.Ct. 1046 94 L.Ed.2d 190 Paula A. HOBBIE, Appellant,v.UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION OF FLORIDA and Lawton & Company. No. 85-993. Argued Dec. 10, 1986. Decided Feb. 25, 1987. Syllabus After 21/2 years, appellant informed her employer that she was joining the Seventh-day Adventist Church that, for religious reasons, would no longer be able to work at employer's jewelry store on Sabbath. When refused scheduled shifts Friday evenings Saturdays, discharged. She then filed a claim unemployment compensation, which denied by claims examiner "misconduct connected with [her] work" under applicable Florida statute, Unemployment Appeals Commission (Appeals Commission) affirmed. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Commission's order. Held: Florida's refusal award compensation benefits violated Free Exercise Clause First Amendment. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 398, 83 1790, 10 965; Thomas Review Board Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 707, 101 1425, 67 624. Pp. 139-146. (a) State denies receipt benefit because conduct mandated belief, thereby putting substantial pressure an adherent modify his behavior violate beliefs, denial must subjected strict scrutiny can justified only proof compelling state interest. did not seriously contend its infringement could withstand scrutiny, there is merit contention justification should determined less rigorous standard demonstrating challenged requirement governmental reasonable means promoting legitimate public 141-142 (b) cannot ground law, completely ineligible but disqualified limited time. 142-143. (c) Nor upheld conflict between belief caused alteration conditions employment after hired, caused, instead, appellant's conversion during course employment. 143-144 (d) There argument awarding Establishment accommodation practices here entangle in unlawful fostering religion. 144-145. 475 So.2d 711 (Fla.App.1986), reversed. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. POWELL, post, p. ----, STEVENS, opinions concurring judgment. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting statement, ----. Walter E. Carson, Washington, D.C., petitioner. John D. Maher, Tallahassee, Fla., respondent. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 Appellant's discharged when certain hours sincerely held convictions adopted beginning question decided whether violates Amendment Constitution, as applied States through Fourteenth Amendment.1 2 * Company (Lawton), jeweler, hired Hobbie October 1981. employed first trainee assistant manager retail store. In April 1984, immediate supervisor baptized into Sabbath, from sundown Saturday.2 devised arrangement Hobbie: agreed Sundays, he substitute whenever evening or Saturday. 3 This continued until general learned it June 1984. At time, meeting minister, either submit resignation company. do either, her. 4 On 4, Department Labor Security. Under are available persons who become "unemployed fault their own." Fla.Stat. § 443.021 (1985). contested payment "disqualified benefits" had been work." 443.101(1)(a).3 5 A Bureau Compensation Hobbie's benefits, appealed determination. Following hearing before referee, agreeing constituted App. 3. 6 order Appeal. September 1985, court summarily Commission.4 We postponed jurisdiction, 1117, 106 1633, 90 179 (1985), we now reverse.5 II 7 our precedents, disqualification Amendment, Amendment.6 965 (1963); Bd. 624 (1981). considered South Carolina's Sabbatarian who, like Hobbie, Saturdays. State's 8 "force[d] choose following precepts religion forfeiting one hand, abandoning accept work, other hand. Governmental imposition such choice puts same kind burden upon free exercise fine imposed against Saturday worship." U.S., 404, 1794. 9 concluded Sherbert's rights Thomas, too, unlawfully burdened employee's right Jehovah's Witness, beliefs forbade participation production armaments. He forced leave job closed department transferred him division fabricated turrets tanks. benefits. found employee "put fidelity cessation coercive impact forfeiture this situation undeniable: 11 " 'Not apparent declared ineligibility derives solely practice y(3)27 religion, [the employee] forego unmistakable.' supra, 717, S.Ct., 1431 (quoting Sherbert, 1794). 12 see meaningful distinction among situations Hobbie. again affirm, stated Thomas: 13 "Where important proscribed faith, where exists. While compulsion may indirect, nonetheless substantial." 717-718, 1431-1432 (emphasis added). 14 Both infringements does scrutiny; rather urges hold articulated Chief Burger's Bowen Roy, 476 693, 707-708, 2147, 2156, 735 (1986): "[T]he Government meets demonstrates neutral uniform application, interest." Five Justices expressly rejected Roy. See id., 715-716, 2160 (BLACKMUN, part); 728, 2167 (O'CONNOR, joined part 733, 2169 (WHITE, dissenting). reject today. As O'CONNOR pointed out "[s]uch test has basis precedent relegates serious value barest level minimal Equal Protection already provides." Id., 727, 2166. also Wisconsin Yoder, 406 205, 215, 92 1526, 1533, 32 15 (1972) ("[O]nly those interests highest otherwise served overbalance religion").7 suggests two grounds might distinguish present case. First, points deemed insurance scheme conflicted contends faces benefits,8 once fixed term served, will "be equal footing all workers, provided avoids conflicts beliefs." Brief Appellee Comm'n 12. argues provision than determination imposes therefore permissible. 16 without substance. effects identical, penalty substantial. Moreover, given controlling weight involved similar relevant respects statutory section implicated here. 709-710, n. 1, 1427-1428, 1. 17 attempts case arguing unlike employees "agent change" responsible consequences beliefs. respective time hire; subsequent changes made belief. case, changed employment, creating faith previously existed. "it . unfair adopt existing expect continue compromising beliefs" "intentional disregard constitutes misconduct." 20-21. 18 effect, asks us single convert different, favorable treatment individual whose adherence precedes decline so. protects another they hired.9 timing immaterial have burdened; salient inquiry involved. employment; choosing former over latter brings coercion bear choice. 19 Finally, Clause. long recognized government (and sometimes must) accommodate so violating Clause.10 See, e.g., (judicial exemption Amish children compulsory attendance high school); Walz Tax Comm'n, 397 664, 1409, 25 697 (1970) (tax churches). issue religion: 20 "In holding do, plainly 'establishment' Carolina, extension Sabbatarians common Sunday worshipers reflects nothing more obligation neutrality face differences, represent involvement secular institutions object forestall." 409, 1796.11 III 21 conclude Here, force "to judgment 22 Reversed. 23 dissenting. 24 I adhere views dissent 720-727, 1433-1436, Accordingly, affirm. 26 properly concludes (1963), (1981), control decision both cases, analysis deny convictions. each these action interest remarkably similar: even though recognizes, "no Hobbie." Ante, 141. established apply 27 Court's last Term (1986), undercut applicability plurality Roy indicated "some incidental restraints religion," applicants Social use assigned numbers, need supported justification. 712, 2158. distinguished cases statute "created mechanism individualized exemptions." 708, 2156. noted: 28 "If [S]tate creates mechanism, extend instance hardship discriminatory intent. [Sherbert ], therefore, appropriate require demonstrate reason denying requested exemption." Ibid. 29 Thus, makes explicitly clear reasoning 30 recognizes footnote 142, 7. Instead relying distinction, however, reaches toto. strikes me inappropriate unnecessary. Given context, rejection dictum. proper approach Thomas. Because goes further, concur 31 concludes, ante, 141-142, controlled provides own," singles religiously motivated dismissal indeed 443.101. thus regards "religious favorably claims," 17, 2164, (1986) (STEVENS, result). instance, granting necessary protect observers unequal treatment. United Lee, 455 252, 264, 3, 102 1051, 1058, 71 127 (1982) judgment). agree explanation, 142-143, why rejected. An duty governed Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. sought relief pursuant action. It undisputed bona fide held. Record 70, 100. defines "misconduct" follows: 'Misconduct' includes, to, following, shall construed pari materia other: "(a) Conduct evincing willful wanton deliberate violation standards employee; "(b) Carelessness negligence degree recurrence manifest culpability, wrongful intent, evil design show intentional duties obligations employer." 443.036(24) issued stating: "PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED." 6. per curiam affirmance Supreme Fla.Rule App.Proc. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(i-iv). review directly parties initially disagreed about appeal lay 1257(2). maintained draw constitutionality and, lie. Motion Dismiss Affirm 7-11. However, concedes proper. 4-6. R. Stern, Gressman, S. Shapiro, Practice 112 (6th ed. 1986) (appeal lies 1257(2) if explicit constitutional raised); cf. Lawrence 286 276, 282-283, 52 556, 558, 76 L.Ed. 1102 (1932). Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 60 900, 84 1213 (1940); Illinois ex rel. McCollum Education, 333 203, 68 461, 649 (1948). challenge number supplied any applicant seeking welfare Burger reaffirmed observed statutes provided: "[A] person eligible if, 'without good cause,' quit work. 'good cause' created exemptions. If urged consider tends exhibit hostility, neutrality, towards 2156 (citations omitted). accepted Justice's Roy—which not—we Although purpose provide leads scheme—which labels penalizes dictated misconduct—exhibits greater hostility toward deeming resignations "without cause." voluntarily leaves position cause attributable employer, week departure becomes reemployed earns times weekly amount. 443.101(1)(a)(1). discharge due misconduct work—the here—is identical voluntary departure, except additional specified weeks added depending severity offense. 443.101(1)(a)(2). Cf. Ballard, 322 78, 87, 64 882, 886, 88 1148 (1944) (In applying Clause, courts inquire truth, validity, reasonableness claimant's beliefs); Callahan Woods, 658 F.2d 679, 687 (CA9 1981) ("If judicial truth one's clause, reasons adopting similarly intrusive. So based asserted, matter, purposes, derived revelation, study, upbringing, gradual evolution, some source appears entirely incomprehensible") (citation majorities were individuals situation, 719-720, 1432-1433 1796); 723, 1434 (REHNQUIST, dissenting); 422-423, 1803-1804 (Harlan, recent Estate Thornton Caldor, Inc., 472 703, 105 2914, 86 557 reveals constitute establishment Thornton, Connecticut absolute Sabbath "unyielding weighting favor ha[d] primary effect impermissibly advance[d] particular practice," 710, 2918, placed unacceptable employers co-workers exceptions special circumstances regardless resulting mandatory accommodation. contrast, class implicitly endorsing Rather, generally within irreconcilable demands conscience neutrally accommodates practices, endorsement.

Classification Label: 2