Click here to view full article at newsok.com
Derek Ensminger is an employment law attorney with Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville. Derek Ensminger is associate general counsel for labor and employment for Sonic Corp., and an Oklahoma City University adjunct employment law professor. Recent case addresses tension between laws protecting religious exercise
Q: What are the federal laws protecting religious exercise?
A: There are two: the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Regarding the Free Exercise Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a “neutral, generally applicable” law survives constitutional scrutiny. The protection provided by this standard is narrow. Congress therefore enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which states: “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The act only applies to the federal government, not states or municipalities. Some states, including Oklahoma, have enacted their own “mini-RFRAs” providing religious exercise protection from state and local laws. Because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides broader protection, it’s typically the primary federal law relied on by religious objectors. Indeed, the act was the statute relied on by the companies in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the landmark 2014 case where the U.S. Supreme Court held that closely held corporations are exempt from federal contraceptive coverage regulations that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.
Q: Can closely held employers invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify employment discrimination that’s otherwise prohibited by federal law, such as Title VII?
A: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently addressed the issue in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. In that case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit on behalf of a transgender employee who was terminated shortly after informing the employer, a funeral home, that the employee intended to transition from male to female. The commission alleged that the employer violated Title VII by discriminating […]