Limits to a boss forcing religion on an employee

Inspired by the Kim Davis marriage license fiasco, it seems there may have been a few clerks willing to issue licenses but were not allowed to because of the boss’ religious beliefs. So the question is how far can a boss legally go imposing their religious belief on their staff

a) if not work related like requiring the employee to fast during Ramadan or attend church every Sunday.

b) if work related like not speaking to a woman in the shop with her head uncovered.

c) if one of Davis clerks did issue marriage licenses after she had made it clear that she was refusing to do so purely on religious grounds and that clerk were fired, would that clerk be able to sue as a protected class i.e. religion and the practice thereof?

That can be very much work related, what with people having Sunday jobs or jobs whose requirements are considered heavy enough to give a pass on Ramadan fasting IIUIC (some people will ask to be moved to the night shift during Ramadan so they can do both).

That’s not what the OP asked. There is a lot of case law in the US about requiring an employee to go against their religion. I don’t know of any about forcing an employee to follow an employer’s religion. An atheist employee would not have any problems with the first case, but a lot with the second.

In the Davis case I don’t know if adherence to a religion which is okay with SSM would mean that the employer forcing the employee not to issue licenses (as required by law) could count as religious discrimination. It would be stretch, but maybe not much more than allowing people to do stuff you don’t like is.

Actually, I suppose the ban on classroom prayer in schools might be an example. Forcing or pressuring kids to say any prayer is going to impose religion on some.

I read that with Davis jailed for contempt, the clerks have been issuing licenses. Some claim that the licenses are not official without her signature; others claim that is false. I am pretty sure the people using them will be considered married in the eyes of the law. Her husband claims she will neither yield nor resign. Only the legislature can impeach her. Aside from the fact that I wonder whether they would, they are not in session and the governor says he is not calling them into a special session. She could stay in jail till her term of office ends, I suppose.

It’s not that the assistants have authority to issue licences, but Davis has instructed them not to. It’s that Davis has authority to issue licences. Normally the practice is that an assistant may deal with applicants, check the form, prepare the paperwork, etc, but it’s brought to Davis to sign, and she hasn’t been signing them. But she hasn’t (SFAIK) prevented the assistants from doing anything that is part of their normal job; she hasn’t imposed any religious observance on them.

The judge has now directed the assistants to issue the paperwork without Davis’ signature. There is, I think, some room to quibble still about whether the unsigned licences are valid.

Wow this went quickly off the rails. So I’m Christian but have no problem with SSM. Can an employer force me to follow their religious-based praciced if they conflict with MY interpretation? Don’t I have a freedom of religion to follow my religion in the way I want? Or another way, can an employer interpret a job description according to their religious practice?

See post 3. The question is whether issuing SSM licenses, or support of SSM, is a tenet of your religion as opposed to something it does not oppose. In the prayer case it was pretty clear that forcing or pressuring a child to participate in someone else’s prayer was an infringement on their freedom of religion.
If some religion really got behind SSM, then we could have a very good clash of freedoms. And Davis would certainly lose again.

Davis has the authority to issue licenses. Davis does not have the authority to force her staff to break the law.

But as her staff have (normally) no authority to issue licences, this second point doesn’t really arise.

We are now in a situation where the federal courts have directed her staff to issue licences. Davis would have no authority to tell them not to, but SFAIK she hasn’t tried to do that.

So marriage licenses grind to a halt when she is on vacation, in hospital, on mat leave or in prison? There must be some clause about who fills in for an absent official?

IANAL, but my guess…

Presumably the boss can make office-related rules - “in deference to our employees who are fasting for religious reasons, there will be no food or drink consumed in the office.” But she cannot tell you that you can’t slip out for a quick burger at lunch. (Unless you don’t get lunch, which I presume is contrary to any states’ labour standards.) She sure as hell cannot tell you what to do outside business hours, especially what to eat or what to do on your day of rest.

In fact, the employer cannot discriminate against you for religious reasons; since religion IIRC is a protected class; cannot refuse to hire non-Christians, or Catholics, or Episcopalians or Muslims etc. Similarly, cannot fire you for failure to follow rules that discriminate. Presumably part of your (paid) employment duties could include attending a religious service, but if that conflicted with your beliefs then that would be a violation too. However, there are not too many religions that make it a grievous sin to attend another church in observer capacity or as a courtesy, etc. Many churches strive to encourage inter-denominational cooperation. Your paid duties presumably cannot force you to participate in the rituals, (especially circumcision).

There are basic tasks that any job involves. If you cannot interact with women dressed in a normal fashion for that business setting, then presumably you took the job under false pretences since you cannot do the job as it is defined. You cannot claim religious discrimination when let go. Of course, the employer must make “reasonable accommodation” so if there is a separate line for men-only that you could reasonably work on, say, then that might be the correct compromise. I can’t think of too many places like that outside of a steam bath business.

The opposite is different - unless there is a deep and serious reason, the employer cannot require their employee to remove their head-scarf. Say, they are working around power tools and risk of tangling in the machinery… but then, a properly secured scarf, not flopping free, is probably no more dangerous than an open-collar shirt or long hair, which should be similarly restrained. “Reasonable accommodation”.

“Wrongful dismissal” is the term for firing someone without just cause. However, in the land of the free, workers have no rights - so as long as the firing is made “because we don’t get along” and not due to failure to obey an illegal order (prove it!) an American employer can do all sorts of nasty things not permitted in the civilized world because America has “employment at will”. (Wiki says "Common law protects an employee from retaliation if the employee disobeys an employer on the grounds that the employer ordered him or her to do something illegal or immoral. However, in the majority of cases, the burden of proof remains upon the discharged employee. ")

Incorrect. America is not employment at will. At will employment is not universal. While it may affect a majority of private employees, various states have enacted various exemptions. (PDF warning.) In addition, public sector employees and union employees have added safeguards.

Getting back to the OP there are EEOC protections preventing an employer from imposing the employer’s religious beliefs upon employees with selected exemptions.

No. She can depute the authority. The point is, only she can depute it; it’s her authority.

I wasn’t trying to answer, but pointing out that what is and is not work-related isn’t always obvious. I used to go to Mass on Thursdays because my working hours were incompatible with going on Sunday.

The question then is whether or not the jesus freak has the authority to direct the state’s deputies to perform illegal acts (in this case, to discriminate against gays contrary to the SCC).

I am of the opinion that the nutter does not have any personal authority at all over the deputies, and that the office she holds has no authority over the deputies to compel them to carry out illegal acts.

If she does not have the authority to direct the deputies to perform illegal acts, then until the deputies’ commissions are lawfully terminated they can continue in their regular course of issuing marriage licences in accordance with the law, which now includes same sex couples.

The deputies are bound to the office and to carrying out the lawful duties of that office, as opposed to being bound to a particular meat sack and to carrying out illegal acts.

Sheriff says to her duly sworn deputy: “He’s black. Shoot him.”

Prison warden says to her duly sworn deputy: “He’s a rapist. Do not let him ever again eat or drink.”

County clerk says to her duly sworn deputy: “He’s gay. Do not issue a marriage license to him.”

According to this New York Times article (bolding mine):

Wonder how far that Muslim flight attendant is going to get refusing to serve alcohol to passengers on the airliner? Will they lift her suspension?

Or more to the point of the OP, could a Muslim lead (whoever is in charge) flight attendant order the other flight attendants to not serve alcohol?

I’m not convinced.

There must be a difference between ordering a subordinate to do something illegal and ordering a subordinate not to do something legal. Ms Davis appears to have the authority to tell her staff not to issue marriage licences. I understand that she has been scrupulous not to issue marriage licences in a discriminatory way, or order her staff to do so.

For example, if I’m employed by Manny Goldberg and he tells me to spend the afternoon compiling his accounts, I don’t get to say ‘screw you Manny, my religion permits me to spend the day at the beach, so you gotta let me do that or else it’s religious discrimination. Atheist accountants have rights too you know’. Most employees, most of the time, are under strict instructions not to do many legal things.

OK again!
This is a thread inspired by Kim Davis but this is not a Kim Davis thread. There is another one for that. I made this thread to discuss forcing religion (or more precisely religious views) on a subordinate at work. Can we please stick to the topic?