"Taking the two decisions together, an interesting thought emerges: How would the conservative majority rule if a religious college argued that affirmative action was part of its creed? That would produce some interesting arguments."
Two Supreme Court decisions on June 29 had special significance for those concerned about the intersection of law and religion, and the results couldn't have been more different.
In the first case, Groff v. DeJoy, an evangelical Christian sued the postmaster general because he was told he must work on Sundays. The court, in a unanimous decision — that's right, a unanimous decision — sided with the employee. Writing for the court, Justice Samiel Alito said, "an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."
It had been 50 years since the court had actually looked at what standard should apply to flesh out the kind of accommodations Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires, and a lot of regulations had been passed since. The fact that the decision was unanimous is a big, flashing light to those who think they can override the religion clauses of the First Amendment for any but the most extreme reasons.
The second decision was more controversial, and more contested. It addressed two challenges to the affirmative action policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina brought by an advocacy organization, Students for Fair Admissions.
No comments:
Post a Comment