I don't know why more people aren't writing about this...

[onionsoupmix]

There's a case pending before the Supreme Court now and the frum organizations are on the wrong side here.

In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the Supreme Court is considering whether a parochial school has the right to fire employees at will. Traditionally, religious organizations have been given a lot of latitude when it comes to compliance with employment

Comments

[hamaskil]

She was an ordained minister. If you are not, you don't have all these problems...

[elcour]

One might expect her now to sue the government, for there's a good shot at proving a law effectively preventing her from carrying our her legal duty to be anti-constitutional.
OSM, what do you think?

[onionsoupmix]

Are you referring to the teacher who was fired for reporting abuse? I think the most I can say is that if another teacher in that school is criminally charged with violating the reporting law, she can raise a constitutional defense. I don't know what she could sue for herself.

[elcour]

What does that have to do with criminal charges?
Don't you have provision for proceedings against an anti-constitutional law?

[imush]

A mashgiach who is making less than minimum wage.
Could that be covered by the exemption? I don't think it is an employer preference issue, whoever they hire, they would still have to pay a minimum wage.

All of these people would be completely without any legal protections.
On the other hand, if the courts get to decide what is or what is not a religious preference exception, it does not leave much of the whole exemption. If you want fair treatment, don't look for work there. Certain places are exempt from honoring your civil rights, like inside the crocodile pit at the zoo.

Which of the following ethical standards will hold up for religious exemption in your estimation, if the organisation were to prohibit

* wearing a green kippah
* not having the right slogan on the kippah
* having the wrong slogan on the kippah
* using a cell phone
* marrying a baal teshuva
* marrying a sephardi
* having a husband who works for a living
* having listened to Shostakovich
* having heard of Shostakovich
* refusing to commit insurance fraud

[onionsoupmix]

No, let me explain again. It is not a religious exemption. It is a ministerial exemption. Once a person is considered a minister, he or she has no more rights, the organization can decide to pay him however much they want or to mistreat him or to fire him for any reason whatsover.

If this is applied, say to a synagogue that decides to fire a rabbi because he has gone off the derech, that makes sense.

But the term "minister" has been used to apply to anyone who is important to the religious organization's mission, including specifically, mashgichim. So once a mashgiach is included within the term "minister" he can be fired for any reason and paid anything they want. Same with teachers, principals, even secretaries in some cases. Marrying BT or having husband who works or refusing to committ fraud- they can terminate for any reason whatsoever and the employee has no claim to go to court, no lawyer will take the case.

[imush]

I see; but "who is a minister" question is as fair a game.

A Jewish organisation, for example, may want some of this discretion if it were to hire a butcher, a winemaker, a doctor, etc. Since just about any activity is regulated by halacha, the employee always has a kind of religious duty to ensure compliance.

[onionsoupmix]

my point is that the butchers and winemakers and doctors employed by these religious organizations lack even the most basic protections that the vast majority of the rest of society enjoys.

[mrn613]

But aren't most private school employees employees-at-will? Because they are not members of the public school teacher or administrators unions, they can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

And child abuse suspicions are reported anonymously. My children's ped says that over the past 30 or 40 years he has been contacted by social workers employed by the state more than 100 times on nuisance reports. So to report the principal, all you have to do is borrow your neighbor's phone and call into the hotline.

[onionsoupmix]

At will employees still cannot be fired for discriminatory reasons or retaliatory reasons or for reasons against public policy. You cannot fire an at will employee because she is black or female or asked for a raise to minimum wage.

In many states, including mine, child abuse suspicions are not anonymous at all, although they will be kept confidential from the alleged abusers. That means the school finds out that the teacher called, but maybe not the parents. Most of the time that last one doesn't work out either.

It would be difficult if not impossible for a teacher to report that another teacher was abusing a child and retain total anonymity.

Businesses will do Whatever to Whomever

[mrn613]

>>At will employees still cannot be fired for discriminatory reasons or retaliatory reasons or for reasons against public policy

[anonymous]

Interesting. I had no idea such a concept existed in American law

[onionsoupmix]

There can be no requirement to show the conduct was religiously relevant because it is considered too much entanglement for courts to determine what is or is not religiously relevant... this ferverent protection of first amendment rights is ending up doing more harm than good at this point, imo.

[righteousrasha]

"All of these people would be completely without any legal protections. Of course, they could go to beis din. Yeah, that might work out for them."

Am I the only person around who thinks that the entire concept of a beis din is inherently biased and unjust?

[onionsoupmix]

Why do you think so? It is essentially an arbitration system, kind of like Judge Judy, where both parties agree to abide by whatever the arbitrator decides based on a pre-agreed upon on body of law.

Sure, there can be crazy botei dinim, but I don't know that they are all like that. I do think that many of them are powerless and politically entrenched.

[righteousrasha]

A Jew is required to resolve their legal dispute using a beit din because otherwise there is a supposed chillul Hashem that they think the secular court system is more fair, or the legal system more just. If that actually is the case who has committed the chillul Hashem - the person going to the secular court or the batei din and poskim?

[righteousrasha]

It depends