🐂 Not all bull runs are created equal. November’s AI picks include 5 stocks up +20% eachUnlock Stocks

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs claims of workplace religious bias

Published 04/05/2021, 09:59 AM
Updated 04/05/2021, 11:00 AM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court in Washington

By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a chance to further expand religious rights, turning away two cases in which employees accused companies of violating federal anti-discrimination law by insufficiently accommodating requests for time off to meet religious obligations.

The justices declined to hear appeals by two men of different Christian denominations - a Jehovah's Witness from Tennessee and a Seventh-day Adventist from Florida - of lower court rulings that rejected their claims of illegal religious bias. Lower courts found that the accommodations the men sought would have placed too much hardship on the employers.

In a dissent, conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito said the court should have taken up the case from Tennessee. The Supreme Court has taken an expansive view of religious liberties in a number of important cases in recent years.

At issue in the cases was the allowances companies must make for employees for religious reasons to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion as well as race, color, sex and national origin.

Gorsuch wrote that religious rights under the employment law are "the odd man out" because they do not receive as much protection as other rights guaranteed under federal law, such as those that apply to the disabled.

"Alone among comparable statutorily protected civil rights, an employer may dispense with it nearly at whim," Gorsuch wrote.

Under the law, employers must reasonably accommodate workers' religious observance or practices unless that would cause the company "undue hardship" - which the Supreme Court in a 1977 case determined to be anything more than a minor, or "de minimis," burden. Critics of the "de minimis" standard have argued that it particularly harms religious minorities.

Last year, in a similar appeal that the court declined to hear that involved a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, three conservative justices - Alito, Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas - indicated that the court should consider overruling the 1977 precedent.

The Tennessee case involved Jason Small, a leader in the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation in the Memphis suburb of Collierville who worked as a dispatcher at Memphis Light, Gas and Water, a large public utility. Small missed work in 2015 to attend worship on the Good Friday holiday as well for a congregational duty the following Wednesday even though his requests for time off had been denied.

Small was suspended for two days without pay. The company said Small missed work on "multiple occasions."

The Florida case involved Mitche Dalberiste, a Seventh-day Adventist. GLE Associates, a Florida company that performs work-site safety monitoring, revoked his job offer after he disclosed that he would be unable to work on the Sabbath, which he observed from sundown on Friday to sundown Saturday.

GLE, in a court filing, said Dalberiste lied about his ability to work on weekends and said it regretted being dragged into a "special-interest fueled lawsuit attempting to circumvent Congress." Dalberiste is represented in part by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a religious rights legal group.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court in Washington

Both men sued in federal court, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII.

In Small's case, the Cincinnati, Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that accommodating him would cause more than "de minimis" hardship on the company's operations and other employees. The Atlanta, Georgia-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling against Dalberiste.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.