Court Opinion

ID: 9790755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:59:08.501459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:26.164271
License: Public Domain

Judge Edmonds
concurred specially, stating that, if the constitutional issues were reached, he would hold that BOLI’s rule violated Article I, section 3, on its face, because “it fails to accommodate an employer’s expression of religious belief or opinion.” Id. at 287-91. But he reasoned that the court need not reach the constitutional issues presented, for several reasons: BOLI’s rule exceeded its statutory rulemak-ing authority, id. at 283; the findings of discrimination due to Complainant’s religious beliefs, id. at 285, and that a hostile environment existed were not supported by substantial evidence in the record, id. at 286-87; and, in any event, BOLI’s conclusions did not follow from the findings that it made, id. at 287.