Does the line of cases that allow sexual harassment claims for damages by clergy against their religious employers (e.g., Bollard v. Cal. Province of Society of Jesus, 196 F. 3d 940 (9th Cir, 1999)) survive Hosanna-Tabor? Is that just another "employment discrimination suit," or is it more like "an action by [an] employee[] alleging . . . tortious conduct," of the sort left open by the Hosanna-Tabor opinion?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>wrote: > Is anyone convinced by the Court's distinction of Smith? Well actually, all > nine Justices were convinced, all twelve federal circuits have been > convinced, and twelve state supreme courts have been convinced, with none > going the other way. "Physical acts" is not the best label for the scope > of > Smith, but the basic distinction between internal church governance and > other matters goes all the way back to Locke. It is embedded in a line of > Supreme Court cases that long pre-date Sherbert and Yoder and that > peacefully co-existed with Reynolds v. United States (a case refusing > religious exemptions). > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Virginia Law School > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric J Segall > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:40 AM > To: Con Law Prof list > Subject: RE: Hosanna-Tabor II > > This is the sum total, after a quick read, of what the Court said about > Smith: > > "But a church's selection of its ministers is unlike an individual's > ingestion of peyote. Smith involved government regulation of only outward > physical acts. The present case, in contrast, concerns government > interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and > mission of the church itself. See id., at 877 (distinguishing the > government's regulation of"physical acts" from its "lend[ing] its power to > one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma"). > The contention that Smith forecloses recognition of a ministerial exception > rooted in the Religion Clauses has no merit." > > "Physical acts," v. an "internal church decision." > > Is anyone convinced by this? > > > ________________________________________ > From: Eric J Segall > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:34 AM > To: Con Law Prof list > Subject: Hosanna-Tabor > > So Title VII, a generally applicable law that was not passed to hurt or > affect religion (and in fact protects religion), does not apply to > religious > groups. I am not an expert in the Free Exercise Area, but how can Scalia > join this opinion? Am I missing something? > > Thanks, > > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
