Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Last updated

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) is a proposed amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would limit employers' discretion to decline to accommodate the religious practices of their employees or prospective employees in the United States. WRFA would amend that part of title VII which is codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).

Contents

Context

In its current form (as of 2013), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j) forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, including "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." The 2013 version of WRFA would delete the phrase "he is unable", and substitute for it: "the employer is unable, after initiating and engaging in an affirmative and bona fide effort." [1]

Content of the proposal

Under WRFA, an employer would be required to make a "bona fide effort" to accommodate each religious practice or observance, and would be relieved of this duty only if the employer could prove that the effort resulted in "undue hardship". WRFA would also add an additional provision, to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)(2), further limiting employers' ability to deny accommodations with respect to "the practice of wearing religious clothing or a religious hairstyle, or of taking time off for a religious reason." In such cases, the employer's proposed choice of accommodation would not be considered reasonable (or lawful) "unless the accommodation removes the conflict between employment requirements and the religious practice of the employee." In order to refuse accommodation to these categories of religious practices, an employer would be required to meet a stringent definition of undue hardship by showing that "the accommodation imposes a significant difficulty or expense on the conduct of the employer's business." With these provisions, WRFA expressly attempts to supersede the Supreme Court's decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (see Section 2, "Findings," para. 3). In that case, the Supreme Court held that an employer could deny an employee’s request for religious accommodation based on any burden greater than a de minimis burden on the employer.

Introductions

WRFA was first introduced in the House of Representatives in 1994 by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). [2] As originally introduced, the proposed 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)(2) would not have been limited to religious clothing, hairstyle and holiday observances. [3] [4] The bill was introduced in the Senate in 1999, by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), [5] and again in 2002. [6] Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced the bill again in 2003. [7] In 2005, WFRA was once again introduced in the Senate by Senators Santorum and Kerry, and in the House of Representatives by Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Other supporters of the bill included Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). The bill did not pass either house. In 2010, the Act was reintroduced in the Senate as the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2010 (S. 4046). [8] In 2012, the Act was again reintroduced in the Senate as the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2013 (S. 3686). [9] In each case, the Act's sponsor was Senator John Kerry (D-MA). In its various incarnations, the scope of WRFA was narrowed to encompass religious dress, grooming, and holidays. [10] Although WRFA has consistently had supporters in both parties, [4] it has yet to pass.

Reception

Support

This legislation has garnered the diverse support of various religious groups including, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs ,the Council on American Islamic Relations, B'nai B'rith International, the American Jewish Committee, Agudath Israel of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups. [11] [12]

Opposition

When first introduced, WRFA was opposed by the ACLU. [13] The ACLU considered the bill "poorly-written" and argued that it could legalize certain acts of discrimination in the name of religion. [14] The ACLU was also concerned that other employees might be forced to carry additional workloads to accommodate the religious practices of co-workers, and that the secular nature of the workplace would be eroded. [4] They and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other business organizations opposed it as placing undue legal burdens on employers. [4] [11] When the scope of the provision which would create 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)(2) was narrowed, supporters of the bill claimed that the ACLU dropped its opposition, although the ACLU itself declined comment. Michael J. Eastman, executive director of labor law policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said of the revised bill, "We are not in the habit of supporting bills that make it easier to sue our members." [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990</span> 1990 U.S. civil rights law

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Act of 1935</span> 1935 U.S. federal labor law regulating the rights of workers and unions

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1964</span> Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States)</span> United States labor law

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a US labor law governing the federal law of occupational health and safety in the private sector and federal government in the United States. It was enacted by Congress in 1970 and was signed by President Richard Nixon on December 29, 1970. Its main goal is to ensure that employers provide employees with an environment free from recognized hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. The Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Pay Act of 1963</span> United States labor law of the New Frontier program

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex. It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health law</span>

Mental health law includes a wide variety of legal topics and pertain to people with a diagnosis or possible diagnosis of a mental health condition, and to those involved in managing or treating such people. Laws that relate to mental health include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States labor law</span> US laws on fair pay and conditions, unions, democracy, equality and security at work

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the US. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span> Overview of religious freedom in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal employment opportunity</span> Protection of US employees from types of employment discrimination

Equal employment opportunity is equal opportunity to attain or maintain employment in a company, organization, or other institution. Examples of legislation to foster it or to protect it from eroding include the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to assist in the protection of United States employees from discrimination. The law was the first federal law designed to protect most US employees from employment discrimination based on that employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories". The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US), bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada), or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.

A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional, academic, or employment-related, and law often mandates them. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a "reasonable accommodation" as:

... necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social equity</span> Sociology concept concerned with justice and fairness

Social equity is concerned with justice and fairness of social policy. Since the 1960s, the concept of social equity has been used in a variety of institutional contexts, including education and public administration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paycheck Fairness Act</span> Proposed law to address the gender pay gap

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a proposed United States labor law that would add procedural protections to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act as part of an effort to address the gender pay gap in the United States. A Census Bureau report published in 2008 stated that women's median annual earnings were 77.5% of men's earnings. Recently this has narrowed, as by 2018, this was estimated to have decreased to women earning 80-85% of men's earnings. One study suggests that when the data is controlled for certain variables, the residual gap is around 5-7%; the same study concludes that the residual is because "hours of work in many occupations are worth more when given at particular moments and when the hours are more continuous. That is, in many occupations, earnings have a nonlinear relationship with respect to hours."

Religion and business have throughout history interacted in ways that relate to and affected one another, as well as influenced sociocultural evolution, political geographies, and labour laws. As businesses expand globally they seek new markets which leads to expanding their corporation's norms and rules to encompass the new locations norms which most often involve religious rules and terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972</span> United States law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 is a United States federal law which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address employment discrimination against African Americans and other minorities. Specifically, it empowered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to take enforcement action against individuals, employers, and labor unions which violated the employment provisions of the 1964 Act, and expanded the jurisdiction of the commission as well. It also required employers to make reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equality Act (United States)</span> Bill to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the 117th Congress

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County protects gay and transgender people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. The Bostock ruling also covered the Altitude Express and Harris Funeral Homes cases.

Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Appellee Arthur Frank Mayson worked for 16 years in an organization operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was terminated from employment when he "failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples." He filed suit in district court, arguing that his firing violated discrimination on the basis of religion in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court agreed. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII's exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pregnant Workers Fairness Act</span> 2022 United States federal law

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a United States law meant to eliminate discrimination and ensure workplace accommodations for workers with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. It applies to employers having fifteen or more employees. Originally a stand-alone bill first introduced in 2012, the bill was included as Division II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which was passed by Congress on December 27, 2022, and signed by President Joe Biden on December 29, 2022. The bill went into force on June 27, 2023.

References

  1. ↑ "S. 3686 (112th): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2013: Text of Bill". GovTrack. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  2. ↑ "H.R. 5233 (103rd): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1994". GovTrack. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  3. ↑ "H.R. 5233 (103rd): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1994: Bill Text". GovTrack. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Bohn, Lauren (July 3, 2010). "Workplace Religious Freedom Bill Finds Revived Interest". The Huffington Post / Religious News Service. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  5. ↑ "S. 1668 (106th): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1999". GovTrack. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  6. ↑ "S. 2572 (107th): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2002". GovTrack. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  7. ↑ "S. 893 (108th): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2003". GovTrack. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  8. ↑ "S. 4046 (111th): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2010". GovTrack. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
  9. ↑ "S. 3686 (112th): Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2013: Related". GovTrack. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
  10. ↑ Bohn, Lauren (3 May 2010). "Workplace Religious Freedom Bill Finds Revived Interest". The Huffington Post / Religious News Service. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
  11. 1 2 Trotter, Greg (Feb 14, 2008). "Congress Again Considers Workplace Religious Freedom Act". Christianity Today / Religious News Service. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
  12. ↑ Reva Price & Ethan Felson (March 29, 2005). "Action Alerts - 20050329 Workplace Religious Freedom Act introduced". The Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
  13. ↑ ACLU Letter on the Harmful Effect of S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, on Critical Personal and Civil Rights
  14. ↑ "Stop a Sneak Attack on Your Civil Rights and Health Care by Opposing the "Workplace Religious Freedom Act" | American Civil Liberties Union". Aclu.org. Retrieved 2013-01-20.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.