H.R. 1445, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, November 10, 2005, Volumen4U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006 - 91 páginas |
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
Términos y frases comunes
accommodate an employee's accommodate the religious American Jewish Committee bill burden Carolyn McCarthy CATHY MCMORRIS Chairman JOHNSON chamber charges Civil Rights Act concerns conflict Congress constitute an undue cost difficulty or expense dress code EEOC Eliot Spitzer Employer-Employee Relations enactment Equal Employment Opportunity essential functions Establishment Clause Executive Law faith Foltin gious harassment Hardison hearing held religious observance holy day issues KENNY MARCHANT KILDEE legislation litigation Marcosson McCarthy modation obligation observance or practice OLSON perform the essential ployee premium wages protection reasonable accommodation religion religious beliefs religious claims religious discrimination Religious Freedom Act religious liberty request Sabbath SAM JOHNSON Senate significant difficulty Sikh sincerely held religious SOUDER Southern Baptist Convention Subcommittee on Employer-Employee subdivision Supreme Court Thank tion Title VII Trans World Airlines undue economic hardship undue hardship unlawful discriminatory practice violate Workforce Workplace Religious Freedom WRFA York York's law
Pasajes populares
Página 30 - In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.
Página 8 - religion" includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's, religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.
Página 86 - employer' means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include...
Página 32 - See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 US 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 US 294 (1964).
Página 86 - ... or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service...
Página 86 - employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty-five or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person...
Página 30 - If the State does not establish religion over nonreligion by excusing religious practitioners from obligations owed the State, I do not see how the State can be said to establish religion by requiring employers to do the same with respect to obligations owed the employer.
Página 32 - Nation's pillars of strength—our hospitality to religious diversity — has been seriously eroded. All Americans will be a little poorer until today's decision is erased.
Página 31 - The statute singles out Sabbath observers for special and, as the Court concludes, absolute protection without according similar accommodation to ethical and religious beliefs and practices of other private employees.
Página 25 - An employer, the Court concludes, need not grant even the most minor special privilege to religious observers to enable them to follow their faith. As a question of social policy, this result is deeply troubling, for a society that truly values religious pluralism cannot compel adherents of minority religions to make the cruel choice of surrendering their religion or their job.