Seems as though many people didn’t read the solution that the ACLU came up with
Congress should replace WRFA with more narrowly drafted legislation that bolsters only the requirements imposed on employers to accommodate the scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holidays or for the wearing of religious apparel or a beard or hairstyle. Not only would a narrowly drafted bill address most of the problems actually experienced by employees denied religious accommodations, but it also would be a constitutionally sound approach to legislation.
Based on our review of 25 years of Title VII religious accommodation federal decisions, we conclude that the vast majority of the religious accommodation claims that are denied by employers fall into three categories:
- scheduling of religious holidays,
- the wearing of religious clothing or a beard or hairstyle, or
- claims that would result in harm to critical personal or civil rights.
Congress does not have to guess at what types of religious practices it is accommodating or refusing to accommodate when considering WRFA or any amendments to it. The ACLU found that claims for the scheduling of time off for religious holidays or the wearing of religious clothing or a beard together made up 83 of the 113 reported federal decisions since 1977 through the end of last year in which the employee lost his or her claim to a reasonable accommodation.
Changing the approach from WRFA to a bill specifically focused on the problems that real people actually face in the workplace would be consistent with the approach that Congress took a few years ago when it replaced the Religious Liberty Protection Act with the more sharply focused Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Not only did Congress create a powerful new tool for protecting religious exercise without harming any other rights, but it also created a vehicle that was so popular that it passed both houses by unanimous consent on the same afternoon.
Further, a more narrowly drafted bill is more likely to survive an Eleventh Amendment challenge by a state claiming that the statute violates the state’s sovereign immunity. The existing religious accommodation standard in Title VII is the only provision in Title VII to have been found unconstitutional by a federal court of appeals deciding an Eleventh Amendment challenge. See Endres v. Indiana State Police, 334 F.3d 618, 627-30 (7th Cir. 2003). As it considers strengthening the religious accommodation standard in Title VII, Congress must be careful to meet the federalism standards set by the Supreme Court in several recent decisions. Close tailoring of the legislative solution to the constitutional harm being prevented increases the likelihood that a statute will be upheld against an Eleventh Amendment challenge, and decreases the possibility of establishing additional case law further limiting the power of Congress to provide federal remedies for discrimination.
This solution would address everyone’s concerns yet not allow free for all discrimination.
- This would take care of the two old ladies that Kerry says were fired because as Catholics they did not want to work on Christmas.
- It would also allow Jews and Muslims to wear religous clothing to their hearts content…even Rasatfarians to wear dreadlocks.
THIS WOULD NOT ALLOW WINGNUTS TO DISCRIMINATE WILLY NILLY TO THEIR HEARTS CONTENT AND REFUSE SERVICE.
Think about it people… had Kerry’s bill been ratified the workers and police officers serving and protecting Terry Schaivo would be legally allowed not to carry out their duties in accordance to the law.
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 677
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 17, 2005
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions [Great company….not]
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005′.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definitions- Section 701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)) is amended–
(1) by inserting `(1)’ after `(j)’;
(2) by inserting `, after initiating and engaging in an affirmative and bona fide effort,’ after `unable’;
(3) by striking `an employee’s’ and all that follows through `religious’ and inserting `an employee’s religious’; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(2)(A) In this subsection, the term `employee’ includes an employee (as defined in subsection (f)), or a prospective employee, who, with or without reasonable accommodation, is qualified to perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.
`(B) In this paragraph, the term `perform the essential functions’ includes carrying out the core requirements of an employment position and does not include carrying out practices relating to clothing, practices relating to taking time off, or other practices that may have a temporary or tangential impact on the ability to perform job functions, if any of the practices described in this subparagraph restrict the ability to wear religious clothing, to take time off for a holy day, or to participate in a religious observance or practice.
`(3) In this subsection, the term `undue hardship’ means an accommodation requiring significant difficulty or expense. For purposes of determining whether an accommodation requires significant difficulty or expense, factors to be considered in making the determination shall include–
`(A) the identifiable cost of the accommodation, including the costs of loss of productivity and of retraining or hiring employees or transferring employees from 1 facility to another;
`(B) the overall financial resources and size of the employer involved, relative to the number of its employees; and
`(C) for an employer with multiple facilities, the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities.’.
(b) Employment Practices- Section 703 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(o)(1) In this subsection:
`(A) The term `employee’ has the meaning given the term in section 701(j)(2).
`(B) The term `leave of general usage’ means leave provided under the policy or program of an employer, under which–
`(i) an employee may take leave by adjusting or altering the work schedule or assignment of the employee according to criteria determined by the employer; and
`(ii) the employee may determine the purpose for which the leave is to be utilized.
`(2) For purposes of determining whether an employer has committed an unlawful employment practice under this title by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the religious observance or practice of an employee, for an accommodation to be considered to be reasonable, the accommodation shall remove the conflict between employment requirements and the religious observance or practice of the employee.
`(3) An employer shall be considered to commit such a practice by failing to provide such a reasonable accommodation for an employee if the employer refuses to permit the employee to utilize leave of general usage to remove such a conflict solely because the leave will be used to accommodate the religious observance or practice of the employee.’.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.
(a) Effective Date- Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by section 2 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Application of Amendments- The amendments made by section 2 do not apply with respect to conduct occurring before the date of enactment of this Act.
needed at all? Are pharmacists not certified by some regulatory body?
Would I not be in big trouble if I walked into a drugstore and commenced dispensing medications without the required certifications?
If a pharmacist took it upon himself to start doling out Oxycontin to local teenagers, or kept his workplace dirty and got rat mistake into the bottle with grandma’s arthritis pills, would not some licensing board or something step in and relieve him of his license?
Why is this issue not being resolved by the National Pharmacy Board or whatever it is called?
The more I think about this issue, the more it seems that it should have been nipped in the bud by the relevant employers and professional boards.
Obviously, it has not. Why?
sort of post-Griswald v. Connecticut history on this.
After all, once birth control became legal everywhere, there must have been wingnut pharmacists that were outraged. No?
Or is this just the natural outcome of 40 years of unfettered religious propaganda and DeLayvian claptrap?
This is better
Has somebody been poring over those dissenting opinions, and plotting chess moves?
And how will the pharmaceutical companies fit into all this?
Is the “compromise” their idea, or what?
Now amid derisive cries of “tinfoil turban,” I will venture where no sane male should. Ladies feel free to cover your eyes.
Some years ago, an over the counter contraceptive device was developed that offered women several advantages:
No prescription
A few points below oral contraceptives in effectiveness
Effective for up to 6 hours or so after application
Small, no accessories required for use
Undetectable by partner
It was withdrawn from the US market a few years after its introduction. The reason given: it presented a health problem if women left it in place too long.
Although there have been several false starts and industry articles heralding its return, it is, to my knowledge, still unavailable in the US.
It is, however available over the counter in other countries, including Canada, where apparently it is felt that women are intelligent enough to remove it when they are supposed to. It is my understanding that US women can purchase it online from Canada, and while that is good news for our more affluent and technologically endowed sisters, the women who are most in need of this product are unlikely to know it is available in Canada, or have internet access.
Aside from the production of expendables for America’s big plans to turn the rest of the world into a big blue Gaza, who is intended to benefit from all this reproduction? The Pampers people?
Why are condoms still available? Is it because men are smart enough to make these decisions or do they have untold applications in the heartland?
I agree with you about the pharmacists. It reminds me a bit of the cheese shop in the Monty Python skit.
is necessary for condom use. This is one of the problems facing the rogue obstructionists who persist in distributing them in Africa, where in some areas, sex itself is practiced without the consent of the female with blood-curdling frequency.
In the US, there are other contraceptive methods available, both with and without prescriptions, but they are less effective, and lack other advantages of either oral contraceptives or the discontinued over the counter product.
Isn’t Coburn the wingnut Senator for Oklahoma who sterilized poor teenage girls WITHOUT their permission?
This is not looking good at all…
and I agree there is something else behind this lunacy.
Only among the least of his accomplishments, in addition :
“In 2003, George W. Bush named Coburn to co-chair the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. Coburn’s very first act was to speak out against the one preventative behavior (other than abstinence) that actually works. “I will challenge the national focus on condom use to prevent the spread of HIV,” he said upon his appointment. Earlier, as a congressman, he had sought to force condom manufacturers to label their products as “ineffective” in slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
In the 1990s Coburn criticized NBC for broadcasting Schindler’s List, the Oscar-winning film about the Holocaust, charging that it would encourage “irresponsible sexual behavior.”
Found the rundown at Portland Phoenix-and there’s more….
Are you kidding? rhetorical…he must be one sick bastard if he thinks watching that gut wrenching movie would somehow make people want to go have sex..makes me shudder to think what he might have been thinking while watching the movie..creepy.
or too jaded to be disgusted. Congratulations, Mr. Coburn. I really didn’t think it could be done, but you’ve proved me wrong.
Well if the Pharmacy Board is anything like medical boards there pretty useless and also by this time people on the Pharmacy Board are probably wingnut asshats as it seems they are everywhere.
This post was supposed to go under Ductapes first post.