religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Successful RFR
.edu>>
Subject: Re: Successful RFRA defense in EEOC case against funeral home that
fired a male-to-female transgender employee for insisting on wearing a skirt
suit to work
Exactly, Eugene. The employer already has available to it the "alternative"
the judge creatively surmi
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 3:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Successful RFRA defense in EEOC case against funeral home that
fired a male-to-female transgender employee for insisting on wearing a skirt
I supported RFRA for years. I am becoming a supporter of Smith.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Assoc. Dir. of International Programs
Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
http://iipsj.org
http://sdjlaw.org
"Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope, so
Exactly, Eugene. The employer already has available to it the
"alternative" the judge creatively surmised. The employer himself didn't
propose it, no doubt because he would object to Stephens not wearing a tie
(not to mention other indicia of the fact that she's a woman, e.g.,
make-up), and to re
In today's EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes,
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0156-9f0a-d073-a5d7-df9ef3920001, a federal
district court rejected a EEOC claim on RFRA grounds. I'm a bit puzzled,
though, by the court's reasoning, and I wanted to ask what fellow list members
thought.
1
