I note for the record, with fully snarky intentions, that I know of no
imaginative rendering of Moses or Jesus that depicts them in suits, nor is it
my impression that modern Popes dress gender appropriately.
The argument basically boils down to "customer's" veto, and I see no difference
I agree with Eugene. The whole point of uniform policies (other than purely
functional ones like hard hats) relates to the message the clothing sends.
Here, the funeral home owner had very particularized employee dress
requirements in keeping with the solemnity and sensitivity required to help
I don’t think the substantial burden argument is quite that weak. One’s
employees who speak to customers speak on one’s behalf. I would think that, if
for instance, a Quaker who opposed deadly self-defense (not all do, I think,
but some do) might be substantially burdened by a (hypothetical)
I supported RFRA for years. I am becoming a supporter of Smith.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Assoc. Dir. of International Programs
Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
http://iipsj.org
http://sdjlaw.org
"Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope,
Exactly, Eugene. The employer already has available to it the
"alternative" the judge creatively surmised. The employer himself didn't
propose it, no doubt because he would object to Stephens not wearing a tie
(not to mention other indicia of the fact that she's a woman, e.g.,
make-up), and to
In today's EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes,
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0156-9f0a-d073-a5d7-df9ef3920001, a federal
district court rejected a EEOC claim on RFRA grounds. I'm a bit puzzled,
though, by the court's reasoning, and I wanted to ask what fellow list members
thought.
