I’m not sure why TRFRA is the likeliest claim; I would think
that the strongest claim would be a Title VII one. Nor does the “you knew the
job required this when you took it” defense work for Title VII; maybe it
should, but that’s not the way the law stands now.
Nor do I see anything in Title VII that limits religious
accommodation claims to ones in which the defendant knows that he is helping
someone do something that he thinks is sinful; if his religious belief is that
it’s wrong to help someone do something that he has strong reason to believe is
extremely sinful (in his view, murder), then I would think that Title VII
applies there. Of course, that’s subject to the usual undue hardship /
reasonable accommodation requirement; if, for instance, there are no other
drivers available, then it might well be an undue hardship to accommodate the
driver – but if other drivers are available, then I would think the case for
accommodation is as strong as in the nurses cases.
As to the Muslim cab drivers, what’s so ironic about some
members of a religious group disagreeing with their religious leaders’ views?
Under standard American Establishment Clause and religious freedom law, the
question is what the claimant sincerely believers, not what his religious
leaders believe.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 3:44 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Settlement or extortion?
Art may well be right about insurance counsel.
But to the merits-- Even under TRFRA--where is the substantial burden here?
The vast majority of Planned Parenthood's services have nothing to do with
abortion, no one forced him to become a bus driver, and he has no religious
belief that he need be a bus driver.
This reminds me of the Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis who refused to pick up
passengers at the airport who were carrying closed bottles of alcohol (think:
people bringing wine in from France). The City at first gave an accommodation
and then woke up and realized that you cannot have a workable taxi system that
permits drivers to pick and choose among passengers. (NY figured that out a
long time ago) The case was particularly ironic, because area imams announced
that there is no religious prohibition for Muslims that forbids carrying
someone else's closed alcohol.
The slippery slope here is really slippery, and should have led defense counsel
to dig in their heels in my view. It was none of the driver's business what
the women were doing. For all he knew, they were going to PP to protest
abortion. Presumably, he would have approved of that, and would have happily
driven them to carry out that viewpoint. So what is his "right"? Does he have
a right to question passengers and drop them off at locations where they will
do that with which he agrees, but to balk if they are going to engage in
conduct he disapproves of? It is absurd.
Marci
In a message dated 4/25/2011 6:26:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
artspit...@aol.com writes:
I suspect the [Texas] Capital Area Rural Transportation System had liability
insurance covering this risk and that this case was settled by the insurance
company's counsel, who could care less about the principles involved, or even
about the legal merits except insofar as they affect the settlement value of
the case. With ACLJ representing the plaintiff, defense counsel reasonably
would have anticipated having to litigate the case to judgment in the district
court and then in the 5th Circuit, at a cost undoubtedly far exceeding the
$21,000 settlement.
You can call that extortion if you want to, but Texas does have a state RFRA,
and how different is this case from the thousands of lawsuits filed every year
in which one party settles despite believing that it has a meritorious claim or
defense, knowing that it faces a determined opponent with a deep pocket?
Opposing counsel often tell me that my clients' cases have only nuisance
settlement value. (Often I prove them wrong.)
By the way, I gather from the news report that this was not the driver of a bus
on a fixed route that happened to go near Planned Parenthood. The story says,
"The system, operated under an agreement among participating counties, offers
bus service on fixed routes and through requested pickup ...." and, "After he
was dispatched to take the women to Planned Parenthood in January, Graning
called his supervisor “and told her that, in good conscience, he could not take
someone to have an abortion."
Art Spitzer
In a message dated 4/25/11 5:19:05 PM, hamilto...@aol.com writes:
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
