Re: Utah bills

ists.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 t

RE: Religionlaw Digest, Vol 132, Issue 10

t, 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 l

Re: Utah bills

Most states have a co-religionist hiring exemption for organizations with religious purposes, akin to section 702 of Title VII. A few have narrower co-religionist exemptions, limited to jobs with religious duties of some kind. From my reading of Utah law when this story arose last week (I have

Re: Utah bills

Here’s are possible answers to my own questions. According to this, SB296 does not change Utah law, under which religiously-affiliated nonprofits were already exempt: The ACLU was one of the most vocal opponents

Utah bills

Hello all: I’m trying to get my arms around the Utah legislation that passed last night. I have two questions about the exemption from the definition of “employer” in SB 296. (I have been following the list serv discussion, but I may have missed discussion of this matter. I apologize if I have