Lawmakers Look to Protect Religion in Workplace
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 – When it passed in 1965, the Civil Rights Act was a landmark step for the rights of black Americans. Now an unlikely, bipartisan group of legislators wants to expand the law’s protections to include religious working Americans.
At issue is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would, among other things, require employers to make a “bona fide” effort to accommodate an employee’s religion-related needs and would specifically exempt the way an employee dresses and when they take time off from being included in consideration of whether he or she can perform the essential functions of the job.
Under current law, employees may be let go for their religious practices or observances if accommodating these needs constitutes an undue burden on the employer. The bill would define more specifically what would constitute an undue burden on employers.
According to Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), one of the bill’s sponsors in the House, the courts have interpreted that burden too loosely.
“The Supreme Court has effectively thwarted the intent of Congress,” he said.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), the bill’s other House sponsor, agreed. She said that some court rulings indicate that “any hardship is an undue hardship.”
Souder said that the bill enjoys “broad bipartisan support” in both houses of Congress and added that it has caused unexpected people to reach across the aisle – it is sponsored in the Senate by Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) and. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
The House Education and Workforce Committee’s subcommittee on employer-employee relations held hearings Thursday on the bill.
Rep. John Tierney (D-Salem) said the hearing provided a welcome opportunity to learn more about the bill and noted the importance of achieving the right balance between employee’s rights and employer’s needs.
“We must protect workers’ rights, including their freedom from all types of discrimination, religious or otherwise,” said Tierney.
One dissent to the generally positive view of the bill came from Camille A. Olson, who was at the hearing representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to Olson, the current protections of employees’ religious civil rights are sufficient.
Samuel A. Marcosson, the associate dean of the University of Louisville’s Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, also voiced concerns that the bill might “cross the line into non-neutrality.”
“Government must be neutral between religions and between religion and non-religion,” he said.
Marcosson expressed concern that the bill excluded non-economic factors that could contribute to an undue hardship determination, such as whether accommodation of a religious person’s needs would infringe on the rights of that person’s co-workers.
Richard Land, the only expert witness at the hearing who was neither a lawyer nor a member of Congress, urged the subcommittee to pass the bill.
Land, who was there representing the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said it is important for citizens not just to have the right to believe what they want, but also the right to act on that belief.
“This principle unites people of diverse faith because we all have challenges to our religious practice,” he said. “To protect one – all must be protected.”
The bill’s future is unclear because is not currently scheduled for a vote in the committee.
####
