As President, Kamala Would Wage Legal War On Churches
A Harris-Walz Administration would thrust intrusive, expensive, and time-consuming lawsuits on religious organizations.A Harris-Walz Administration would thrust intrusive, expensive, and time-consuming lawsuits on religious organizations.Federal court rules Biden administration can't force Christian businesses to pay for employees' sex changes
A federal judge ruled Monday that the Biden administration cannot compel religious employers and health care providers to compromise their sincerely held religious convictions by paying for or performing sex-change medical interventions.
The background
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case Bostock v. Clayton County, expanding the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include employment discrimination against individuals on the basis of their sexual preferences or transvestism.
Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services subsequently interpreted the so-called Affordable Care Act and Title VII as requiring employer health insurance plans to cover elective sex-change procedures.
The Christian Employers Alliance, a religious business group, sued the EEOC, HHS, and various officials in the Biden administration in October 2021, stressing the two federal regulatory mandates exceeded the "government's statutory and constitutional authority."
"Many religious employers — including CEA and all its members — hold sincerely held religious beliefs that such gender transition surgeries and procedures are morally wrong," said the original complaint. "Providing these gender interventions contradicts their beliefs that God purposefully created humans as either a biological male or female and that a person's biological sex is immutable."
The CEA's complaint noted that neither the EEOC nor HHS provided religious exemptions from the mandates and that a failure to comply would expose its membership to heavy fines, burdensome litigation, possible criminal penalties, and other costs.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the CEA requested that the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota prevent the Biden administration from imposing the mandates on the CEA.
The ruling
U.S. District Court Judge Daniel M. Traynor acknowledged in his Monday ruling that HHS' interpretation of Section 1557 of the ACA and the EEOC's interpretation of Title VII would require Christian businesses to provide "insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs without satisfying strict scrutiny under the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act].
"Performing or providing health care coverage for gender transition services under the EEOC and HHS coverage mandates impinges upon CEA's beliefs," wrote Traynor. "CEA must either comply with the EEOC and HHS mandates by violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or else face harsh consequences."
He also found that the Biden administration had failed to demonstrate that it could not protect transvestites' rights in a manner that didn't infringe upon the Christian employers' religious liberty.
Accordingly, Traynor slapped both agencies with permanent injunctions, precluding them from imposing their respective interpretations on the CEA in a manner that would require the complainants to perform or pay for sex-change procedures.
The reaction
Shannon Royce, the president of the CEA, said the court's ruling was "a resounding victory for all present and future members of the Christian Employers Alliance."
"We are overjoyed our members will not have to choose between the biblically based employee benefits and quality health care they provide, and the threat of federal enforcement and massive costs for practicing their faith," added Royce.
Matt Bowman, senior counsel and director of regulatory practice at the Alliance Defending Freedom, similarly celebrated the ruling.
"All employers and healthcare providers, including those in the Christian Employers Alliance, have the constitutionally protected freedom to conduct their business and render treatment in a manner consistent with their deeply held religious beliefs," said Bowman. "The court was on firm ground to stop the administration from enforcing these unlawful mandates that disrespect people of faith."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Sen. Bill Cassidy Is The Left’s Useful Idiot On Abortion
Cassidy could have insisted on entirely exempting abortion language from the PWFA. But he caved like a cheap suit.Get vaccine or be fired? Federal agency affirms companies can force employees to get vaccinated
The federal government says businesses can mandate that employees get vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter their workplace, and offer incentives for receiving the vaccine.
Meanwhile, legal experts affirmed that being fired for refusing the vaccine is generally legal.
What are the details?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released updated guidance Friday explaining that vaccine mandates do not generally violate equal employment regulations.
"The federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of Title VII and the ADA and other EEO considerations discussed below," the agency said. "These principles apply if an employee gets the vaccine in the community or from the employer."
The EEOC also affirmed companies who offer incentives for employees who get vaccinated, although the agency cautioned against "substantial" incentives.
Yes, if any incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties) is not so substantial as to be coercive. Because vaccinations require employees to answer pre-vaccination disability-related screening questions, a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information. ...however, this incentive limitation does not apply if an employer offers an incentive to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation that they received a COVID-19 vaccination on their own from a third-party provider that is not their employer or an agent of their employer.
According to Politico, businesses had been pressuring the EEOC to "clarify whether employers could offer paid time off or even cash to encourage vaccination."
"[E]mployers including Dollar General, Aldi and Instacart have already moved to reward their employees for receiving the COVID-19 vaccine by offering paid time off and cash stipends," Politico reported.
Can you be fired for refusing the vaccine?
As the vaccine became available to all American adults this spring, employers began requiring vaccination — and employees who refused the vaccine began to be terminated, which have resulted in lawsuits.
But legal experts say that firing employees for refusing a vaccine given Emergency Use Authorization by the Food and Drug Administration is probably legal, especially considering most states have "at-will" employment laws.
"I am not aware of any court or agency at the state or federal level that has held that the Emergency Use Authorization language prohibits an employer from enforcing a vaccine mandate," attorney Erik Eisenmann told Bloomberg News.
Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, agrees. "It's a condition on future employment. And institutions can do all sorts of things as a condition of employment," he said.
Addressing the EUA argument, Bagley told Bloomberg, "The argument looks good for about a half-second, and then, as soon as you start digging, it starts to look much, much worse."
Report: Facebook under investigation for 'systemic' racial discrimination practices
The United States government is reportedly investigating Facebook for racially discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the government agency tasked with protecting the civil rights of employees, is leading the investigation, Reuters reported.
What are the details?
Lawyers representing Facebook operations manager Oscar Veneszee and three others who were denied jobs at the social media giant revealed the existence of the investigation.
The allegations are that Facebook discriminates against black employees and job candidates "by relying on subjective evaluations and promoting problematic racial stereotypes," Reuters reported.
One such example of discrimination is that Facebook awards employees a $5,000 bonus if they refer a job candidate who is eventually hired. But the allegations claim that "referred candidates tend to reflect the makeup of existing employees," which allegedly disadvantage black employees.
In fact, the EEOC is investigating whether the alleged racial bias is "systemic," which means, according to Reuters, the government "suspects company policies may be contributing to widespread discrimination."
More from Reuters:
The EEOC typically resolves disputes through mediation or allowing complainants to sue employers. But agency officials designate a few cases "systemic," enabling investigators to rope in specialists to analyze company data and potentially bring a broader lawsuit representing entire classes of workers.
...
The EEOC brought in systemic investigators by last August and received detailed briefing papers from both sides over the last four months, said Peter Romer-Friedman, an attorney at Gupta Wessler representing Veneszee and the job candidates.
Veneszee, a 23-year Navy veteran, filed a complaint with the EEOC last July.
"We have a black people problem," Veneszee told NPR at the time. "We've set goals to increase diversity at the company, but we've failed to create a culture at the company that finds, grows and keeps black people at the company."
What did Facebook say?
Facebook has not specifically responded to the allegations, but said "it is essential to provide all employees with a respectful and safe working environment."
"We take any allegations of discrimination seriously and investigate every case," Facebook spokesman Andy Stone told Reuters.
Anything else?
Technology giants like Facebook and Google are no stranger to allegations of discrimination.
Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, agreed last month to pay nearly $4 million to settle allegations that it discriminated against women and Asian employees.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Facebook in December over allegations the company had discriminated against American workers.
"The Department of Justice's lawsuit alleges that Facebook engaged in intentional and widespread violations of the law, by setting aside positions for temporary visa holders instead of considering interested and qualified U.S. workers," then-Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband said.
Two Kroger workers fired after refusing to wear LGBTQ apron. Now federal watchdog is suing chain for religious discrimination.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against supermarket chain Kroger on behalf of two women who said the store fired them after they refused to wear aprons that included an LGBTQ symbol, ABC News reported.
What are the details?
The lawsuit claims ex-workers Brenda Lawson and Trudy Rickerd said the company implemented a policy in April 2019 that required employees to wear an apron that included a rainbow heart, which they say endorses LGBTQ values, the network said.
The women claimed wearing the symbol would violate their religious beliefs, and that they even tried to offer alternatives, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit.
Lawson, who was 72 at the time, said she offered to wear the apron with her name tag covering the emblem, but the Conway, Arkansas, store allegedly refused, the network said.
"I am requesting a reasonable accommodation of this dress code with regard to my religious belief," she wrote in a letter requesting religious accommodations, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit. "I am simply asking to wear my name badge over the heart logo."
Rickerd, who was 57 at the time, said she offered to wear a different apron without the emblem and sent a letter explaining why she felt she couldn't comply with the policy, the network reported.
"I have a sincerely held religious belief that I cannot wear a symbol that promotes or endorses something that is in violation of my religious faith," she wrote in the letter, ABC News said, citing the lawsuit. "I respect others who have a different opinion and am happy to work alongside others who desire to wear the symbol. I am happy to buy another apron to ensure there is no financial hardship on Kroger."
How did Kroger allegedly respond to the women's requests?
Kroger, the country's largest supermarket chain, allegedly denied both requests and retaliated against the women by disciplining and ultimately firing them, the network reported, citing the lawsuit.
ABC News said Teresa Dickerson, a Kroger communication representative, declined the network's request for comment and cited a standard against speaking publicly on pending litigation.
Anything else?
The network — citing the lawsuit — added that Kroger didn't fire other employees who declined to wear the new apron or covered the heart emblem without requesting religious accommodations.
The EEOC — which is in charge of enforcing anti-workplace discrimination laws — filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Monday, ABC News said. The federal watchdog's suit alleges conduct that violates the Title VII, a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, the network said.
"Companies have an obligation under Title VII to consider requests for religious accommodations, and it is illegal to terminate employees for requesting an accommodation for their religious beliefs," Delner-Franklin Thomas, district director of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, said in a statement Tuesday, according to ABC News.
The suit seeks back pay and other compensatory damages as well as an injunction against future discrimination, the network said.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com