Re:
I have a problem picturing the situation. She is claiming she was fired by a Roman Catholic hospital for wearing clothing that, I presume, is similar to what Amish women wear. Her style of dress is probably closer to what nuns wore until the 60"s than what many of the female employees of the hospital are wearing today. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714 375 1147 faz 714 782 6007 a...@alanarmstrong.com Serving the family and small business since 1984 On May 4, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Marc Stern wrote: > > It is hard to believe Congress meant to allow the defendant to deny the > plaintiff employment because of her religiously mandated dress reflecting her > different religious beliefs, but meant to allow a suit when the employer > simply makes adverse comments about the person's dress. > On the other hand ,i think the court is right about retaliation cases not > being preempted by the religious exemption. > Marc Stern > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla. d to edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:36 PM > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' > Subject: Religious harassment claim against a religious hospital? > >Prof. Howard Friedman’s excellent Religion Clause blog pointed > to Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine’s, Inc. (D. Md. Apr. 30), > http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Kennedymsjm&o043010.pdf . > Plaintiff, a nursing assistant, was a member of the Church of the Brethren > and wore her denomination’s religious garb; the Assistant Director of Nursing > Services at Villa St. Catherine’s Nursing Center allegedly told her – in > front of the hospital’s administrator/CEO – that plaintiff’s clothes were > “inappropriate in a Catholic institution ... made the residents’ family > members uncomfortable, ... and that Plaintiff should conform to a more > traditional mode of dress.” Some time later – it’s not clear to me when – > plaintiff was fired. She sued, claiming in part that the conduct was open > his remarks. > It is hard to >The defendant moved for summary judgment, apparently based > only on the Title VII exemption for religious discrimination by religious > institutions, and not (yet) based on the claim that the behavior was not > “severe or pervasive” enough to create a hostile or abusive environment based > on religion for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person. The claim that > the defendant was a religious institution was apparently “undisputed.” The > court, however, held that religious harassment isn’t covered by that > exemption, largely because “Unlike decisions to employ or fire based on > religious beliefs, harassment is not a legitimate part of creation or > maintenance of a workforce composed of individuals of compatible religious > beliefs. Nor could Congress have considered it a legitimate way to ‘exercise > a preference,’” and because the EEOC has taken the view that “the religious > organization ‘exemption only applies to hiring and discharge, and does not > apply to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, such as wages or > benefits.’” > >Any thoughts on whether this decision is sensible? It strikes > me as unsound as a matter of statutory construction, because the exemption > applies to “discrimination,” and the premise of hostile environment > harassment law is that harassment is illegal precisely because it constitutes > discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. (The EEOC’s view > about the exemption generally not applying to terms, conditions, and > privileges of employment thus strikes me as unsound as well.) > >But beyond this, it strikes me as exacerbating the First > Amendment dangers posed by hostile environment harassment law. Religious > harassment claims might apply not just based on statements to the particular > person, but also based on religious proselytizing aimed at the employees at > large, based on religious claims that offend other religious belief systems, > and so on – the sort of behavior that I would think religious institutions > should be free to engage in. Or am I missing something here? > >Eugene > ___ > 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
[no subject]
It is hard to believe Congress meant to allow the defendant to deny the plaintiff employment because of her religiously mandated dress reflecting her different religious beliefs, but meant to allow a suit when the employer simply makes adverse comments about the person's dress. On the other hand ,i think the court is right about retaliation cases not being preempted by the religious exemption. Marc Stern From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla. d to edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 4:36 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: Religious harassment claim against a religious hospital? * Prof. Howard Friedman's excellent Religion Clause blog pointed to Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's, Inc. (D. Md. Apr. 30), http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Kennedymsjm&o043010.pdf . Plaintiff, a nursing assistant, was a member of the Church of the Brethren and wore her denomination's religious garb; the Assistant Director of Nursing Services at Villa St. Catherine's Nursing Center allegedly told her - in front of the hospital's administrator/CEO - that plaintiff's clothes were "inappropriate in a Catholic institution ... made the residents' family members uncomfortable, ... and that Plaintiff should conform to a more traditional mode of dress." Some time later - it's not clear to me when - plaintiff was fired. She sued, claiming in part that the conduct was open his remarks. It is hard to The defendant moved for summary judgment, apparently based only on the Title VII exemption for religious discrimination by religious institutions, and not (yet) based on the claim that the behavior was not "severe or pervasive" enough to create a hostile or abusive environment based on religion for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person. The claim that the defendant was a religious institution was apparently "undisputed." The court, however, held that religious harassment isn't covered by that exemption, largely because "Unlike decisions to employ or fire based on religious beliefs, harassment is not a legitimate part of creation or maintenance of a workforce composed of individuals of compatible religious beliefs. Nor could Congress have considered it a legitimate way to 'exercise a preference,'" and because the EEOC has taken the view that "the religious organization 'exemption only applies to hiring and discharge, and does not apply to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, such as wages or benefits.'" Any thoughts on whether this decision is sensible? It strikes me as unsound as a matter of statutory construction, because the exemption applies to "discrimination," and the premise of hostile environment harassment law is that harassment is illegal precisely because it constitutes discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. (The EEOC's view about the exemption generally not applying to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment thus strikes me as unsound as well.) But beyond this, it strikes me as exacerbating the First Amendment dangers posed by hostile environment harassment law. Religious harassment claims might apply not just based on statements to the particular person, but also based on religious proselytizing aimed at the employees at large, based on religious claims that offend other religious belief systems, and so on - the sort of behavior that I would think religious institutions should be free to engage in. Or am I missing something here? Eugene ___ 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.
Religious harassment claim against a religious hospital?
Prof. Howard Friedman's excellent Religion Clause blog pointed to Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's, Inc. (D. Md. Apr. 30), http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Kennedymsjm&o043010.pdf . Plaintiff, a nursing assistant, was a member of the Church of the Brethren and wore her denomination's religious garb; the Assistant Director of Nursing Services at Villa St. Catherine's Nursing Center allegedly told her - in front of the hospital's administrator/CEO - that plaintiff's clothes were "inappropriate in a Catholic institution ... made the residents' family members uncomfortable, ... and that Plaintiff should conform to a more traditional mode of dress." Some time later - it's not clear to me when - plaintiff was fired. She sued, claiming in part that the conduct was "pervasive and rendered Plaintiff's work environment hostile and/or abusive." It's not clear to me how often the Assistant Director made his remarks. The defendant moved for summary judgment, apparently based only on the Title VII exemption for religious discrimination by religious institutions, and not (yet) based on the claim that the behavior was not "severe or pervasive" enough to create a hostile or abusive environment based on religion for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person. The claim that the defendant was a religious institution was apparently "undisputed." The court, however, held that religious harassment isn't covered by that exemption, largely because "Unlike decisions to employ or fire based on religious beliefs, harassment is not a legitimate part of creation or maintenance of a workforce composed of individuals of compatible religious beliefs. Nor could Congress have considered it a legitimate way to 'exercise a preference,'" and because the EEOC has taken the view that "the religious organization 'exemption only applies to hiring and discharge, and does not apply to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, such as wages or benefits.'" Any thoughts on whether this decision is sensible? It strikes me as unsound as a matter of statutory construction, because the exemption applies to "discrimination," and the premise of hostile environment harassment law is that harassment is illegal precisely because it constitutes discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. (The EEOC's view about the exemption generally not applying to terms, conditions, and privileges of employment thus strikes me as unsound as well.) But beyond this, it strikes me as exacerbating the First Amendment dangers posed by hostile environment harassment law. Religious harassment claims might apply not just based on statements to the particular person, but also based on religious proselytizing aimed at the employees at large, based on religious claims that offend other religious belief systems, and so on - the sort of behavior that I would think religious institutions should be free to engage in. Or am I missing something here? Eugene ___ 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.