- Quickdraw McLaw
- 23 Comments
- 179 Views
The end of summer is near and, judging by the lack of phone calls and email alerts this morniung, many of you are already out of the office for the long weekend. We hope you enjoy some downtime and do so in a safe and healthy manner. Please don’t drive if you’ve been drinking.
For those of you stuck in the office today, here are a few news items:
- Local attorneys say employers can mandate vaccines. [News3LV]
- The attorney for multiple January 6 riot defendants is missing. [ABA Journal]
- Beginning January 1, Arizona is eliminating peremptory challenges of jurors. [Reuters]
- What else is going on out there? Any big plans this weekend? Are you traveling out of state?
Maybe my betters can cite to the caselaw supporting the employer's inquiry into the depths of one's religious beliefs. Silly me thought that such an inquiry is abhorrent. "So, Mr. Smith, you claim to be Christian, do you now? Let me interrogate you for a few hours to satisfy myself of the depth of your belief."
1) There is no evidence that anything like that has happened or will happened. You're getting yourself worked up about a speculative hypothetical.
2) This is not the first time the law has had to deal with work requirements clashing with religious beliefs (e.g. working on shabbat). We have a framework for dealing with this kind of issue. It might not always come out the way you or I would want, but this isn't some novel crisis.
10:31 – don't you go being all rational now.
10:31 don’t feed the troll at 10:19
I will feed the thoughtful poster:
No employer – including the State – is permitted to determine which religious adherent has a correct understanding of religious doctrine or whether a health care worker’s sincerely held religious beliefs are shared broadly among members of her faith.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, an employee’s “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” Thomas v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981). See also Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1993) (same). Additionally, though membership in or adherence Religious Exemption and Accommodations from Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccine Policy to the tenets of an organized religious is plainly sufficient to provide protection for an individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs, it is not a necessary precondition. See Frazee v. Ill. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 489 U.S. 829, 834 (1989) (“Undoubtedly, membership in an organized religious denomination, especially one with a specific tenet forbidding members to work on Sunday, would simplify the problem of identifying sincerely held religious beliefs, but we reject the notion that to claim the protection [for sincerely held religious beliefs], one must be responding to the commands of a particular religious organization.” (emphasis added)). See also Office of Foreign Assets Control v. Voices in the Wilderness, 329 F. Supp. 2d 71, 81 (D.D.C. 2004) (noting that the law provides protection for “sincerely held religious beliefs,” “not just tenets of organized religion”).
I disagree to an extent 12:31. The question turns not so much on correct adherence to religious doctrine as sincerity of belief (as your citation notes). The majority of such employer/employee decisions turn very much on the sincerity of belief which is tested by adherence to certain practices and codes of conduct. Sincerity of belief is measured by consistency of adherence.
I think the case law is clear: employers don't get to vet your beliefs. I mean, my friends, it's the very first amendment of our beleaguered bill of rights. Can you imagine any of our founding fathers tolerating some redcoat swinging by and administering a quiz to see how truly Christian they were?
For that matter, can you imagine any of our founding fathers passing a quiz administered to see how truly Christian they were?
To my OCs who keep serving identical sets of written discovery to multiple parties on the same side of the v: just stop. If you serve a request for production to the product's manufacturer asking for its distribution contract with the product's distributor, you don't need to serve the same request to the distributor. You're already going to get the contract. Let's save some trees and time here.
Honestly, you are wrong. Your assumption is that both parties will agree that the same document or agreement and you can rely upon that. It wouldn't be the first time that parties disagree or have lost track of what version of the agreement they are on.
I'm seriously not trying to be an ass but I can think of a few reasons why one might feel or actually be obligated to do that. Especially when the parties are represented by different counsel. and if one party refuses to produce the contract there could also be ramifications at trial or even at a dispositive motion stage. these may not always be the case though I recognize that. it reminds me of the construction defect depos where the lawyer for the cultured countertops guys feels compelled to ask the roofing expert deponent if he or she has any problems with their work.
I agree with 11:55. Plus, at trial you can hold a party to the universe of documents they identified as relevant or responsive to a particular issue.
@1030 Lazy much. Also, parties are not beyond fabricating documents "responsive" to a request. More than once, I have caught a deadbeat providing "tax returns" or pay stubs that have been altered or flat out made up. A simple IRS or payroll company inquiry (utilizing proper channels and releases of course) catches the schmuck. Every time.
Not a Political Post – Just a legal question re: the resettlement of Adghan refugees.
There appears to be some refugees who were boarded on the planes and brought here to the USA, have young "wives" with them, some have multiple wives. So, how would that be dealt with? Do we take the child bride away for her safety? We brought them onto our soil where our laws govern. Thoughts?
https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-child-trafficking-27d93a340c4834d497eb36e22bb72f42
It depends on the age of the wife and what she wants to do. A 17 year old married to a 40 year seems offensive, but that happens in America all the time and you don't seem too concerned about that. The women need supportive services and if they are indeed trafficking victims, there are laws in place to help them. (SIV and U-Visas) If it's just a woman with a significantly older husband or a polygamous situation, we can just stop with the pearl clutching. That shit happens in the US every day.
Polygamy is still illegal in all states, as far as I know. Why not lead the change, 3:23, to get those laws abolished?
Polygamy is not recognized by all states, but I don't believe it is a crime in all states. I believe a few years ago Utah decriminalized it.
Polygamy is illegal in 50 out of 50 states. Utah changed its criminality level but it is not legally recognized in any states.
Good post of the article on mandating vaccines. Noticed that the attorneys did not go beyond the topic of mandating. Still would like to see someone tackle the liability issue from getting a bad reaction to a mandated shot. And I'm not criticizing the Covid vaccine, as all vaccines have some sort of risk. But if it's voluntary then the person volunteering for the shot assumes the risk.
First of all, asking local attorneys if the vaccine mandate is legal means nothing. The collective legal analysis of local "brilliant minds" on this issue means absolutely nothing until these cases go up to the Ninth Circuit or SCOTUS. I have dealt with local "legal experts" who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. I have local judges who deny relief for my client stating in the order that they do not care what the Ninth Circuit says. My opinion.
The sun sets on Judge G-Force's magnificence on September 7. I will miss you, judge. Thank you.
Yes, thank you. Not clapping.
L'shana tova all.