
New SCOTUS Standard for Employee Religious Accommodations
by Michael Kane
7-10-23
The attorneys in Kane v. de Blasio, Keil v. City of New York, and New Yorkers for Religious Liberty (NYFRL) v. City of New York have written a letter to the judges in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals who are currently presiding over our cases. These cases represent New York City workers fired for declining covid vaccination whose religious exemptions to vaccination were denied. I am one of these plaintiffs. Attorney John Bursch argued in front of a 3 judge panel back on February 8, 2023 and we have been waiting for a decision for the past 5 months.
SCOTUS has recently ruled unanimously (9-0) to change the standard in cases where employees are seeking religious accommodation in the case Groff v. DeJoy. This ruling now changes the “de minimis” standard, and the new standard now requires that an employer accommodate religious requests or exemptions unless they can prove it would present substantial hardship.
In plain English, this means the old standard was that if a religious accommodation caused even a minimal problem for the employer, they could simply deny it. But that is no longer the interpretation of the law in our country and, because of this, the reasoning upon which the Kane & Keil cases were dismissed by Justice Naomi Buchwald no longer apply.
Attorneys on these cases include Children’s Health Defense, Alliance Defending Freedom, Gibson Lawfirm and Nelson Madden Black.
Read the letter in full below
(And show up to Teachers for Choice court date July 18)
fdas
Does this help teachers that were on unpaid leave for 6 months before being denied due to lack of accommodation?? I succumbed to shot after denial only to get covid for first time exactly 1 week later. Is justice within my reach?
LikeLike
Come to court in Staten Island on Juky 18
LikeLike
Thank you. I cannot physically be there on the 18th. My heart and prayers are with you all
LikeLike
Question
LikeLike
This ruling is great but I am wondering how this ruling helps with healthcare workers. They say there is no “accommodations” because they work with patients. Does this ruling change this in any way.? They don’t accept PPE as an accommodation
LikeLike