- This topic has 16 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yesterday the supreme court heard arguments about accommodations regarding time off to observe sabbath, the case was brought by a non jew who requested Sundays off.
This case is probably the most important case for frum Jews to come before the US Supreme Court in the last 40 years.See https://agudah. org/protect-sabbath-observers-in-the-workplace-supreme-court-hears-groff-v-dejoy/
A precedent would not be that significant since the employer (defendant/appellant) is the Federal government, which is not merely subject the the employment discrimination laws, but is also subject to a constitutional prohibition against “religious tests” as a condition of employment.
Akuperma
It would depend on what how court decides if more narrowly limited to 1st amendment then I agree witjh you
but if they add that it violates the civil rights act of 64, somewhat overuling TWA v Hardison that seems significantToo much legal protection might have adverse effect. Same as exceeding protections for “birthing persons” and parents makes employers reluctant to hire family people, same strong Shabbat protection will make employers reluctant to hire shomer shabbos people.
Aaq this has already been the case since before the the Great Depression.
The solution was a combination of factors including frum people teaming up to open their own businesses, banks, hospitals etc. as well as the institution of the five day work week.A “win” in a case against the Federal government, may, but not necessarily, would affect the private sector. Remember that the private sector is only restricted by statutes enacted under the commerce clause – whereas the Federal government is also restricted by Constitutional provisions (such as the First Amendment and the Test Act clause) which do not affect the private sector.
If they decide the case under the Civil Rights Act (enacted under the Commerce clause), holding it applies to the Federal government, the precedent would bind private companies. However if they decide the case based on Constitutional restrictions impose on the Federal government, the precedent only affects Federal (or at least, government) employers.
To clarify, if a private company decided it will discriminate on the basis of political ideology(which is not covered by the Civil Rights Act), they can do so – though the Federal government doing so would violate the First Amendment.
“If they decide the case under the Civil Rights Act…”
right, and that was exactly the question the court was asked: “Whether the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ….”
now of course the court is required to specificly address that anc could just ignore that aspect. But it is deffinitly to premature to conclude, as you did, that “A precedent would not be that significant”
“may” not be that significant, yes its possible that it may not. “Would not” No way to determine at thsi time
Call 1800-DISCRIMINATION
I am not sure which way to argue, I see danger in both lack of protections and too many of them. Middle road is required
> this has already been the case since before the the Great Depression.
the solution was, unfortunately, majority of Yidden not keeping shabbos, so we do need some protections, but not entitlements.A private business should have a right to run the business the way they want. If managing someone with shabbos observance is a tircha for them, we should not demand being hired.
Yep
and akuperma’s comment was wrong. They did not rule on narrow federal government groundsCan someone clarify for the ignorant.
Pro Shabbos observance won or the opposite?Yeshivish: Good news for the Jews!!. A frum yid who asks for “accommodation” to leave early eruv shabbos, take off on Yom-Tovim, offer to make up time on Sunday etc. will be better off. An employer will have to show that it would incur substantial costs and/or service interruptions to deny such a request. As noted in an earlier post, this decision may indirectly result in employers not hiring frum yidden in the first place but once they are employed, the firm must make a reasonable effort to accommodate their religious needs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.