Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
“A Rockland County family filed suit against the New York Archdiocese after a Catholic preschool wouldn’t accept their child because she has not been fully vaccinated, according to the Post. The couple — who filed the suit anonymously — claim they are the victims of religious discrimination and are seeking a court order so their 4-year-old can attend the St. Margaret School in Pearl River after the preschool rejected their request for a religious exemption.” [Gothamist]
{ 24 comments }
A New Mexico court has upheld state-levied fines against a photographer who refused a job taking pictures at a same-sex wedding (Elane Photography v. Willock). Eugene Volokh, who has written about the case previously, now has a series of posts on the implications of the court’s effort to force creators to “create speech that they don’t want to create.” He also adds posts on the religious accommodation angle, the inevitable what-about-racists objection, and the role of state laws prohibiting “discrimination” against customers based on their political beliefs. More: Timothy Kincaid, Box Turtle Bulletin (”time for New Mexico to change its law. …ultimately what kind of freedom will we have won to live our lives as we see best if it costs the freedom of others to do the same?”).
{ 17 comments }
Having succeeded in winning a ruling that his beliefs in spiritualism and mediums qualify as a form of religious belief, Alan Power can proceed with his suit alleging that he was improperly dismissed because of them. His case “follows a landmark ruling last month that environmental views should be considered equivalent to religious and philosophical beliefs”. [Telegraph, Independent] (& welcome Popehat readers)
{ 7 comments }
It “carries costs for air safety,” declares the headline of a USA Today editorial: “Payouts could chill crews from acting on reasonable suspicions.” Earlier here.
{ 5 comments }
{ 2 comments }
The clothing chain, famed for its hormone-saturated atmosphere, is being sued by the feds on behalf of a Muslim teenager whom it allegedly refused to hire because of her insistence on wearing a modest hijab headscarf, modesty being arguably incompatible with Abercrombie’s image. [EEOC press release via Ohio Employer's Law]
{ 3 comments }
From Wales: “A Jedi church leader is considering legal action after he was asked to leave a supermarket for wearing his hood.” [Ananova, Daily Post, Telegraph] Earlier on U.K. Jedi legal complications: SSFC guestposting last year (Woolworth’s won’t sell kids light sabers lest they be mistaken for weapons). More: Popehat.
{ 11 comments }
Religious discrimination is prohibited, the logic goes, and the views in the case at hand were intense enough to count as akin to religion. Critics are said to fear a “flood of litigation” on behalf of other workers whose strongly held beliefs bring them into conflict with co-workers or employers. [Guardian]
{ 2 comments }
…now suing the Mount Vernon, Ohio school district, claiming that he’s the target of religious discrimination. [Popehat, Mount Vernon News with complaint in PDF; coverage of the cross incident last year at Courthouse News; commentary critical of teacher at Panda's Thumb, supportive at WorldMag]
And now Deborah Smith of Poplar Bluff, Missouri has won a $45,000 settlement of her claim that library managers should have been more accommodating of her religious scruples about helping promote the popular Rowling wizard-themed books. The library had offered to let her remain behind the scenes during a special Potter event but said she did have to help. The ACLU represented her. [On Point News]
{ 2 comments }
Past differences on other issues aside, Jonathan Turley has a good column (in Sunday’s WaPo) on international trends toward restricting speech.
{ 1 comment }
Eugene Volokh notes a disturbing case arising from land-use conflicts in Walkersville, Maryland.
Con artists, lawyers, and people who deserve a punch in the face:
Walter Olson will be back soon enough, but I’ll note that I have come to appreciate just how good a blogger he is, and how hard Walter works in keeping this site going over the past few days. Perhaps you might show him your appreciation? Vote early, and vote often.
{ 6 comments }
[walks up to blackboard]
I will NOT take at face value anything Bill O’Reilly says regarding the supposed “War on Christmas”.
[repeats 99x]
(my post at Secular Right just now; earlier).
{ 2 comments }
I expect to be blogging on that subject quite a bit at the new site I’ve helped launch, Secular Right. Today I’ve got a few thoughts up on the so-called Freedom of Choice Act and its potential impact on Catholic hospitals, so-called conscience laws entitling employees of clinics and drugstores to opt out of their job duties when asked to dispense contraceptives or assist in other reproductive services, the never-ending war over Christmas and tit-for-tat atheist displays, and more. (Dec. 7).
{ 5 comments }
Hasanali Khoja, a Muslim chef employed by London’s Metropolitan Police as a catering manager, has filed a discrimination claim after being asked to prepare breakfasts with pork sausages and bacon, saying he had been assured he would not have to handle the meat products. (David Barrett, “Muslim police chef claims religious discrimination over sausage and bacon breakfasts”, Telegraph, Nov. 2). The Minnesota meat-packing case discussed earlier is here.
{ 2 comments }
Minnesota: “In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold’n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities.” The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had sued Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc., along with an employment agency that worked with it, charging religious discrimination and retaliation on behalf of the Muslim workers. The employment agency had required applicants to sign a form saying that they would not refuse to handle pork products if the occasion arose at work. (Chris Serres, “Somalis win prayer case at Gold’n Plump”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 10). “The timing of the [paid] added [prayer] break will fluctuate during the year so as to coordinate with the religious timing for Muslim prayers.” The two companies between them also agreed to pay $365,000 as part of the settlement. (Sept. 10; EEOC news release; via Workplace Prof Blog).
{ 12 comments }
Point of Law