Oregon construction worker fired for refusing to attend Bible study

[they don't love you like i love you]

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2018/08/lawsuit_oregon_construction_wo.html

The construction company owner says it's legal because his employees were paid for the time at Bible studies.

[dead0man]

that's a tough one.  The guy is doing a great thing by hiring ex-felons, that's something most people don't do (for good and obvious reasons).  I wouldn't mind getting paid to sit in church for an hour a week, it can't be any worse than other kinds of pointless classes jobs often make us sit through.

If they're getting paid and are free to quit, I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't know what the actual law says.

[they don't love you like i love you]

that's a tough one.  The guy is doing a great thing by hiring ex-felons, that's something most people don't do (for good and obvious reasons).  I wouldn't mind getting paid to sit in church for an hour a week, it can't be any worse than other kinds of pointless classes jobs often make us sit through.

If they're getting paid and are free to quit, I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't know what the actual law says.

I would support it being legal to pay them to attend Bible study, but if a worker doesn't want to, they should be able to simply opt out and forfeit the pay. Not be fired for it.

[dead0man]

Yeah, I agree that would be better, but I don't think there aught to be a law about it.

[Karpatsky]

So much for all the concern for 'religious freedom'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Tough one. Clearly it should be illegal to require people to attend a religious observance as part of a job. However, bible study need not be a religious observance. So it depends upon how the study is conducted and whether what he does during it affects his employee evaluation.

[Torie]

I am quite confident this is illegal. Bible study to me is quite clearly a "religious activity," and one cannot force employees to participate in religious activities.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am quite confident this is illegal. Bible study to me is quite clearly a "religious activity," and one cannot force employees to participate in religious activities.

Bible study can also be viewed as  "ethical instruction" .  Employment Division v. Smith makes clear that assertion of religious beliefs does not invalidate otherwise lawful purposes. To the degree accommodation is required, it could be satisfied by having the employee attend an non-Christian ethics training program. I don't see this as a problem requiring a $800,000 payday.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hard to see how it would relevant to employee performance unless they were rebuilding Solomon's Temple or something.

Ethics touches pretty much every job.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hard to see how it would relevant to employee performance unless they were rebuilding Solomon's Temple or something.

Ethics touches pretty much every job.

So does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Which is why I think the correct accommodation is allowing an alternate form of ethics training, assuming the CRA applies. The CRA doesn't apply to small businesses and the suit was brought under Oregon's law which applies to employers of all sizes.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Hard to see how it would relevant to employee performance unless they were rebuilding Solomon's Temple or something.

Ethics touches pretty much every job.

So does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Which is why I think the correct accommodation is allowing an alternate form of ethics training, assuming the CRA applies. The CRA doesn't apply to small businesses and the suit was brought under Oregon's law which applies to employers of all sizes.

What about my proposal (the employer can offer paid Bible study, but employees can simply opt to not attend without pay but without being fired)?

[Torie]

I am quite confident this is illegal. Bible study to me is quite clearly a "religious activity," and one cannot force employees to participate in religious activities.

Bible study can also be viewed as  "ethical instruction" .  Employment Division v. Smith makes clear that assertion of religious beliefs does not invalidate otherwise lawful purposes. To the degree accommodation is required, it could be satisfied by having the employee attend an non-Christian ethics training program. I don't see this as a problem requiring a $800,000 payday.

The damage figure is not real. Damage claims rarely are.  The employer didn't offer up secular ethics training as an alternative, so that is not available as a defense. I don't think what the employer had in mind was ethnics training that was employer related anyway. He was trying to save lost souls.

Smith was about legalizing a crime (use of peyote) based on the free exercise of religion. The peyote users lost. The case is not apposite. The free exercise clause does not mean an employer can force employees to receive religious instruction.

[Torie]

Hard to see how it would relevant to employee performance unless they were rebuilding Solomon's Temple or something.

Ethics touches pretty much every job.

So does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Which is why I think the correct accommodation is allowing an alternate form of ethics training, assuming the CRA applies. The CRA doesn't apply to small businesses and the suit was brought under Oregon's law which applies to employers of all sizes.

What about my proposal (the employer can offer paid Bible study, but employees can simply opt to not attend without pay but without being fired)?

That won't fly if that means some employees are paid for less hours. The employer needs to pay those who don't want to attend doing some other activity that is not religious.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The employer didn't offer up secular ethics training as an alternative, so that is not available as a defense. I don't think what the employer had in mind was ethnics training that was employer related anyway. He was trying to save lost souls.

Smith was about legalizing a crime (use of peyote) based on the free exercise of religion. The peyote users lost. The case is not apposite. The free exercise clause does not mean an employer can force employees to receive religious instruction.

I'll grant the employer likely views religion as the only true source of ethics. But you seem to miss my point, that the employee's religious views (which is why he objected to being paid to attend a bible study) would similarly not allow him to prevail, if the employer can show a valid business reason for the instruction.

The employee didn't suggest a different form of ethics training as an alternative either, yet I believe that these sorts of laws are generally more about providing equitable remedies than legal remedies.  So, requiring the employee to be rehired and take alternatives to bible study for the ethics training portion of his job, along with payment for the difference between what he would likely have earned and what he actually earned in the interim seems to me to be the appropriate remedy. Any punitive action that might be taken against the employer would be in addition to the remedy.

[DC Al Fine]

that's a tough one.  The guy is doing a great thing by hiring ex-felons, that's something most people don't do (for good and obvious reasons).  I wouldn't mind getting paid to sit in church for an hour a week, it can't be any worse than other kinds of pointless classes jobs often make us sit through.

Yeah, the employer is obviously more sympathetic than what you'd expect for this sort of case, but religious traditionalists should still hope this illegal. I'd hate to have my employer force me to sit through some sort of religious/ethics study that went against my faith.

[RFayette]

Hard to see how it would relevant to employee performance unless they were rebuilding Solomon's Temple or something.

Ethics touches pretty much every job.

So does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Which is why I think the correct accommodation is allowing an alternate form of ethics training, assuming the CRA applies. The CRA doesn't apply to small businesses and the suit was brought under Oregon's law which applies to employers of all sizes.

What about my proposal (the employer can offer paid Bible study, but employees can simply opt to not attend without pay but without being fired)?

This is the best solution.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I wish I could get paid to go to church.

[Skill and Chance]

The company needs to make its religious mission explicit during the recruiting/hiring process.  If they did that, it should be legal.  It should not be allowed if it comes as a surprise after hiring.