Workplace Religious Freedom Goes Too Far
As currently written, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (HR 1431) will empower individuals to use its religious freedom protections to harass co-workers and clients who do not hold or share their religious beliefs. The Secular Coalition for America sent the following letter to members of the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, Pensions, which will soon be considering this bill. We anticipate that by making the bill sponsors and subcommittee members aware of the bill's overly broad language, revisions will be made within the subcommittee to fix this problem.
February 20, 2008
The Honorable Robert Andrews, Chair
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, Pensions
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: HR 1431 Workplace Religious Freedom Act
Dear Chairman Andrews,
The Secular Coalition for America, dedicated to protecting the rights of nontheists, is very concerned about HR 1431. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will empower individuals to use its religious freedom protections as a weapon against co-workers and clients who do not hold or share their religious beliefs.
The purpose of this legislation is to strengthen current protections to require employers to accommodate the religious needs of their employees in such areas as observing religious holidays, wearing religious apparel, and religious requirements for beards and hairstyles; however, the language of this legislation goes much further.
As written the legislation would encourage employees to ignore employer policies prohibiting religious proselytizing in the workplace, religious condemnation of co-workers, and inserting religion into secular workplace practices and activities. The courts have already seen these types of cases and ruled against them, but HR 1431 puts these precedents into question.
For example, a prison social worker was fired because he used bible readings, prayer, and the "casting out of demons" while providing what was supposed to be secular mental health counseling to inmates. He challenged his termination (Spratt v. County of Kent, 1985), but the courts appropriately upheld his dismissal. In 2004, the courts upheld the termination of an employee who posted anti-gay bible verses in his cubicle to protest corporate diversity posters (Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard).
By applying the current Civil Rights Act Title VII reasonable accommodation standard, the courts properly reject these types of religious freedom claims; however, if HR 1431 becomes law the courts may reassess these decisions.
Employees and clients have a right to a workplace free from religious harassment and coercion. This bill must be changed to protect these rights.
If you would like more information or have any questions please contact me at 202-299-1091 or by e-mail.
Sincerely,
Lori Lipman Brown
Director