This reminds me of the religious organizations who tell their employees in writing that they do not discriminate but when they get sued for discrimination argue the ministerial exception.
Religious employers appear to be no different from any other in seeking the most beneficial position at the expense of employees or others. The question is whether courts will hold them to their previous statements and positions. Marci A. Hamilton Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University @Marci_Hamilton > On Jan 6, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org> wrote: > > One further note, related to Marci’s question, and detailed in our > intervention papers: Notre Dame has emphasized the secular nature of its > benefits when in its legal interests to do so. > > In Laskowski v. Spellings, 546 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2008), an Establishment > Clause challenge to public funding of a teacher-training program at Notre > Dame, the university argued that the benefits that it provides, including > health insurance, are “secular expenses.” See Br. of Def.-Intervenor-Appellee > at 7-8, Laskowski, No. 05-2749 (7th Cir.), 2005 WL 3739459, at *8. > > And in American Jewish Congress v. Corporation for National & Community > Service, 323 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2004), rev'd sub nom. Am. Jewish Cong. v. > Corp. for Nat'l. & Cmty. Serv., 399 F.3d 351 (D.C. Cir. 2005), another > Establishment Clause challenge to Notre Dame’s receipt of public funds, the > University argued that purchasing health insurance is “administrative” in > nature and does not constitute “religious instruction or activity.” Mem. of > Def.-Intervenor Univ. of Notre Dame, Am. Jewish Cong., 2003 WL 25709328,at > Part A, § 3, para 10. > > So whatever else Notre Dame may or may not do to create a religious > educational environment, presumably it can’t have it both ways – health > insurance is either a secular expense or involves religious exercise, but it > can’t be both at the same time. > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> Doesn't it depend in some way on how much >> federal money it receives? Again, I am >> simply asking. >> >> Marci A. Hamilton >> Verkuil Chair in Public Law >> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School >> Yeshiva University >> @Marci_Hamilton >> >> >> >> On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Rick Garnett <rgarn...@nd.edu> wrote: >> >>> Notre Dame is allowed (I assume – again, I am just an employee and am not >>> involved in admissions or with the University Counsel’s work) to take >>> religion, and many other factors, into account when building its classes, >>> sure. Does anyone believe that Notre Dame should *not* be able to conduct >>> admissions so as to, for example, admit classes that are predominantly >>> Catholic? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rick >>> >>> Richard W. Garnett >>> Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor of Political Science >>> Director, Program on Church, State & Society >>> Notre Dame Law School >>> P.O. Box 780 >>> Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780 >>> 574-631-6981 (w) >>> 574-276-2252 (cell) >>> rgarn...@nd.edu >>> >>> To download my scholarly papers, please visit my SSRN page >>> >>> Blogs: >>> >>> Prawfsblawg >>> Mirror of Justice >>> >>> Twitter: @RickGarnett >>> >>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton >>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 3:08 PM >>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>> Subject: Re: The nonprofit contraception services cases >>> >>> This is strictly an informational question-- is Notre Dame allowed to >>> discriminate on the basis of religion in undergraduate admission? >>> >>> >>> >>> Marci A. Hamilton >>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law >>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School >>> Yeshiva University >>> @Marci_Hamilton >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Rick Garnett <rgarn...@nd.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> I would recommend Prof. Kevin Walsh’s post (here: >>> http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2014/01/what-does-the-form-that-the-government-insists-the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-must-sign-actually-do.html) >>> on the issue with which Marty kicked off this thread a few days ago. >>> Kevin’s post is called “What does the form that the government insists the >>> Little Sisters of the Poor must sign actually do?” >>> >>> Of course, others have moved from the specific issues that Marty raised to >>> more general (and always important) conversations about RFRA’s >>> constitutionality and the moral desirability of Yoder, but I wanted to ask >>> just a few things with respect to Greg Lipper’s report that Americans >>> United for Separation of Church & State has filed a motion seeking to >>> intervene in the University of Notre Dame’s lawsuit challenging the >>> mandate. (Although I am blessed to teach at Notre Dame, I have no role in >>> the University’s lawsuit.) >>> https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-seeks-to-intervene-in-notre-dame-lawsuit-challenging-womens >>> >>> I understand (though I do not agree with) the claim that, because Notre >>> Dame is a large employer in the area, its right to refuse to provide >>> coverage for contraceptives (in cases where a physician has not indicated >>> that the contraceptives are medically indicated) to employees who do not >>> embrace the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality and abortion is >>> limited. That is, Notre Dame’s role and place in the market limits its >>> right to say to employees “this is who we are, and if you want to work for >>> us, you should expect that who we are will be relevant to the terms of our >>> arrangement with you.” >>> >>> With respect to students, though, it is harder for me to see why Notre Dame >>> should not be able to say to prospective students (as Notre Dame does), >>> “This is who we are. If you come here – and you are welcome to, but you >>> don’t have to – you should know that our character, mission, aspirations, >>> and values will shape the terms of our arrangement with you.” Is it the >>> view of AU, or of others, that the Establishment Clause (or anything else) >>> prevents the government from exempting a Catholic (or other >>> mission-oriented) educational institution from an otherwise general rule in >>> order to allow the institution to say (something like) this to students and >>> the broader world – again, assuming that students who get into Notre Dame >>> (a) have plenty of options and (b) know full well that Notre Dame aspires >>> to a meaningfully Catholic character? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rick >>> >>> Richard W. Garnett >>> Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor of Political Science >>> Director, Program on Church, State & Society >>> Notre Dame Law School >>> P.O. Box 780 >>> Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780 >>> 574-631-6981 (w) >>> 574-276-2252 (cell) >>> rgarn...@nd.edu >>> >>> To download my scholarly papers, please visit my SSRN page >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
