A hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled for Tuesday. The court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.
In federal district court in 2019, Gerald Groff explained why, as a U.S. Postal Service mail carrier in Holtwood, he had refused to show up for work 24 times and ultimately resigned his position.
In arguing Groff’s case, these lawyers want the court to reexamine a 45-year-old ruling that said employers should meet a person’s religious needs only if it doesn’t cause the company an “undue hardship.”Scholars and advocates say a court ruling expanding the rights of religious workers could force a greater portion of the national workforce to defer to conservative Christian stances on issues including birth control, marriage and abortion.
He went to Mennonite schools, and he graduated from Millersville University in 2001 with a bachelor’s degree in biology. He’d been unemployed for over a year when he took a part-time mail carrier job at the Quarryville post office in November 2010. He resigned after 11 months, then returned to the job six months later.
Legal documents show Groff worked out a deal with the Quarryville postmaster to be exempt from working Sundays. But later, the postmaster told Groff she could no longer do that. When scheduled, Groff would not show up. That meant his co-workers in Holtwood had to work Sundays more frequently. Sometimes, Hess said, he was left to deliver the packages himself.
“I think the main thing to understand about this case is it’s about the question of what happens when protecting the religious freedom of one citizen imposes harm on someone else,” Tebbe said. One of Groff’s lawyers, Randall Wenger, of the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center, said reinterpreting what undue hardship means will help workers of all religious backgrounds.
Employees could use claims of religious freedom to do things like preach at work or refer to a transgender person using pronouns that don’t reflect their gender identity, a practice called “misgendering.” Lazer sketched out a number of scenarios: A conservative Christian man who believes that women should not be in positions of power could refuse to hire or promote them. Religious people who don’t believe in marriage equality could refuse to manage married LGBTQ+ people. And a benefits manager could deny birth control coverage to employees based on personal religious beliefs.
For example, the group supported a university professor who misgendered a student, a high school football coach who led team prayers and a cake designer who refused to make cakes for gay couples.
日本 最新ニュース, 日本 見出し
Similar News:他のニュース ソースから収集した、これに似たニュース記事を読むこともできます。
Detour planned for curve realignment on Lancaster County road: PennDOTThe road will be closed to approximately 35 days beginning May 1.
続きを読む »
Local organizations react to Supreme Court decision to extend access to abortion pill'All this back and forth is very confusing for people, and I'm pretty sure many don’t know if they still have access or [not].' Some local organizations say the ongoing legal battle over an abortion pill is causing confusion locally and nationwide.
続きを読む »
U.S. Supreme Court temporarily restores access to abortion pillThe five-day administrative stay from Justice Samuel Alito gives the Supreme Court time to consider the case next week. AbortionPill AbortionRights AbortionRightsAreHumanRights AbortionMedication mifepristone SupremeCourt
続きを読む »
Supreme Court has ‘watered down’ it’s standard for religious liberty: Jeremy Dys | Fox News VideoFAITH FIGHT: A devout Christian’s choice to put his religion over his job is now heading to the Supreme Court. 1stLiberty Institute Senior Counsel jeremydys reacts to the case:
続きを読む »
Protesters gather at Supreme Court to blast judge’s abortion pill rulingHundreds of protestors gathered at the Supreme Court to urge justices to overturn a Texas judge's ruling that threatens access to the abortion drug mifepristone
続きを読む »