Religion & American Law

Original Article:http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/washington-nationals-sued-for-religious-discrimination/

Throughout the 2013 baseball season, three men of the 7th Day Adventists church were permitted to avoid working games that were on Friday nights, and Saturday days, citing those times as being ones designated for religious purpose under their religion. However, at the end of the season, the Nationals decided to fire the employees because their religion required an accommodation.
The three employees have filed a religious suit against the team citing religious discrimination, and are seeking damages as well as back pay for time missed due to their termination. All three of the defendants are DC residents who had been given significant praise by their supervisors, and were regarded well within the community as efficient and effective ushers. The suit further claims that the team had began reassigning its ushers, and scheduling more games during the sabbath time of observance for the three men. According to the 7th Day Adventist church, the sabbath is supposed to be observed from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. The Nationals fired the ushers on the grounds that their religious observance prevented them from working the minimum 80% of the teams games.
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are generally forbidden from discriminating against an employee based on religion, and must accommodate the employee should their sabbath observance come in conflict with their work schedule. Exceptions to the rule come into play when the employer experiences some form of 'undue hardship'. This qualifies as excessive expenditure by the employer, or requiring other employees to overcompensate for those who are in observance. While there are potential legitimate cases that could be made regarding undue hardship, it is unlikely that the Nationals will allow this to go to court, and a settlement is sure to come.
In regards to free exercise, I understand the position that the 7th Day Adventists find themselves in. The three ushers are obligated by their religion to be in observance. However, I find myself siding with the Nationals in their termination of the ushers. The inability to work Fridays and Saturdays at a baseball stadium is, in my opinion, a sense of undue hardship. These are key nights in baseball, where there will be the most attendance, and the highest necessity for reliable employees. If the organization cannot rely on these ushers to work these key time slots, I am sure there are other people more then willing to show up on time and work those shifts. It is an unfortunate circumstance where religion crosses over into the workplace, however, I think it is most efficient for the organization to have consistent employees. In this case, they will be able to find those employees, who are not in need of such accommodations.

What do you think? Constitutionally, this is a grey area, as I interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, you may have another opinion. Is there a case to be made for undue hardship? or is the organization blatantly exhibiting religious discrimination?

Jennette Martonosi has recently become outraged due to an assignment that was given to her Tenth Grade high school daughter. Her daughter, a student at Jenison High School in Michigan, was instructed to create a pamphlet regarding Islam. Part of the instructions that were given with the assignment were that in should be comprehensible enough to be able to "introduce Islam to 3rd graders." The project was assigned in the student's World History Class. The thinking behind the teacher was that in order to understand historic and current events around the world, students should have a full picture regarding other country's religion and culture- which unlike America are often times inseparable.

Outraged by the content of the assignment, Martonosi decided to make her concerns public on Facebook. Her concerns with the project were that she felt as though the assignment was promoting Islam over other world religions. Additionally, she was offended that it claimed that "Allah [is] the same God of the Christians and Jews." (A statement which I will not take to touch up on in this post). 

In response to Martonosi's post, principal Brandon Graham also took to Facebook. Clarifying some of the misunderstandings, Graham ensured the concerned parents that these pamphelts were, and never were intended to be, distributed to Third Grade students. Furthermore, Islam is one of five major religions which are part of the Jenison Public Schools; curriculum. "The religions include Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam." That being said, in an additional post, Martonosi argued that, "Islam was the ONLY religion of the 4 studied so far that was given the assignment to create a pamphlet."

The question here is whether or not the First Amendment Establishment clause has been violated by promoting Islam over other religions. I do not believe that by assigning a pamphlet during the Islam section of the course promotes one particular religion over another. It simply is a way of "stirring" things up in the course in order to keep the students engaged rather than allowing the class to become mundane. If we view this issue from an accommodationist approach, than the fact that the curriculum is incorporating the five major religions- Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam- than the school is appropriately acting with neutrality (granted that some minor religions do not play such an impacting role in a course discussing World History and therefore can be reasonably excluded without acting discriminatory towards them).

In is in my opinion, however, that the assignment has violated the First Amendment. The subject is World History, and although it is important to understand the role which the five major religions play in that subject, students should not be forced to do assignments which are directly engaging with the religions in particular. For a secular purpose of understanding World History, world politics, etc, incorporation of these religions into the material does not violate the First Amendment. However, an assignment geared specifically at addressing the world religions outside of World History is no longer secular but advancing religious purpose.

-->