2010 4:44 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: 10th Circuit Finds Church Immune From Workplace Discrimination Suit
I'm not sure why, absent some judgment about the impropriety of the ministerial
exemption, one would think that employees and potential employees are somehow
alf Of Rick Garnett
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:49 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: 10th Circuit Finds Church Immune From Workplace Discrimination Suit
Friends -- with respect to Marci's suggestion that religious entities be
required to inform people in minister
cfm?per_id=363402
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *hamilto...@aol.com
*Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 10:45 AM
*To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
*Subject:* Re: 10th Circuit Finds Church Immune From Workplace
Discrimination Suit
R
ttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *hamilto...@aol.com
> *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 10:45 AM
> *To:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:45 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: 10th Circuit Finds Church Immune From Workplace Discrimination
Suit
Rick is casting a larger net than my post suggested. The relevant
edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:45 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: 10th Circuit Finds Church Immune From Workplace Discrimination Suit
Rick is casting a larger net than my post suggested. The relevant univer
Rick is casting a larger net than my post suggested. The relevant
universe here is the universe of employees. As in the speech cases (and in
particular the defamation cases since we're dealing with employment), there
should be some weighing of interests here. Right now, in my view, the
nethics.net/>
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:44 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: 10th Circuit Finds Church Immune From Workplace Discrimination Suit
Bob makes very goo
I don't object to the duty Marci seeks to impose - notice to ministerial
employees of their limited right to bring certain kinds of actions against
their religious employer. The remedy is the problem - I assumed from Marci's
original post that failure to give notice would result in waiver of the
mi
Bob makes very good points but I'm not persuaded. Religious employers can
be required to report child abuse by their employees, so why can't they be
required to provide legal boilerplate to incoming employees?
If Bob is right, we have serious problems in my view. The public policy
pr
Marci's idea of a warning for ministerial employees would certainly be a
prudent step for religious employers to take on their own initiative, but I
don't think the state could impose such a requirement as a condition of the
religious employer invoking the exception in litigation -- the exception
s
Joel-- Thanks for sending this along. I had not seen it.
Given her position, the 10th Circuit probably got this one correct under
standard ministerial exception reasoning. So the question is what to do
about the social harm separate from her particular case. I have seen a number
of these
<http://alm-editorial-us.msgfocus.com/c/1v91oFMRsY9j6WpqH> 10th Circuit
Finds Church Immune From Workplace Discrimination Suit
The National Law Journal
An Oklahoma woman who alleged that a Catholic bishop subjected her to
"severe and pervasive" gender and age discriminatio
13 matches
Mail list logo
