RSS
Groff v. DeJoy is the rare Supreme Court decision that every Jew can celebrate
(JTA) — In one of its most anticipated cases of the year, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Groff v. DeJoy last month, significantly expanding the federal protections afforded religious employees in the workplace. The decision itself was unanimous, reflecting a broad consensus that employers should be doing more than previously required when it comes to accommodating religious employees.
Jewish organizations from across the ideological spectrum — from Agudath Israel and the Orthodox Union to the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee to the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism — applauded the ruling as providing long-elusive workplace protections. This new ruling will no longer allow employers to avoid providing accommodations simply because it comes at some minimal cost. Employers will now have to prove such costs are substantial when considered in the broader context of their business.
When Gerald Groff took his job at the U.S. Postal Service, he was not required to work on Sundays. However, after the Postal Service subsequently entered an agreement to deliver packages for Amazon on Sundays, Groff was informed that he could no longer take off on his Sunday Sabbath, as was his custom, which ultimately led to his termination.
The crux of the case revolved around two words in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “undue hardship.” According to the text of Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious practices of their employees, but only if providing such an accommodation does not present an “undue hardship” to their business. In this way, federal law balances the religious needs of the employee against the business necessities of the employer. And the words “undue hardship,” at least on their face, imply that the employers are expected to endure some hardship in order to accommodate religious employees, but that obligation ends once the hardship to the employer’s business becomes “undue.”
While the text of the law appears to impose modest, but important obligations on employers, the Supreme Court — back in a 1977 case, TWA v. Hardison — provided a contorted interpretation of Title VII that required far less of employers. Somewhat counterintuitively, the Court appeared to hold that providing a religious accommodation imposed an “undue hardship” on the employer any time it required the employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost” — that is, a trivial or minor cost. As a result, if an employer could demonstrate a religious accommodation entailed even a trivial cost, she was off the hook. The court’s decision in Hardison rejected an employee’s claim to have his Sabbath accommodated.
Hardison’s stingy standard, and its significant consequences for American Jews in the workplace, is precisely why so many Jewish organizations with varying political outlooks – including the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, National Council of Young Israel, Orthodox Union (full disclosure: I co-authored the Orthodox Union’s amicus brief), and the Zionist Organization of America — all filed amicus briefs before the Court in Groff. As these briefs emphasized, the lack of meaningful protections for religious employees had, over the years, repeatedly forced American Jews to choose between their faith and their livelihood, most notably when it came to observing the Sabbath and Jewish holidays.
But in Groff, the Supreme Court overhauled the standard for employers: According to the decision, an employer must accommodate a religious employee unless doing so imposes “a burden [that] is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” (Emphasis added.)
So what does this all mean for the future of religious accommodation in the workplace?
As the solicitor general noted during oral arguments, there are three broad categories where employees typically seek religious accommodations: scheduling changes such as those required to facilitate Sabbath observance; dress and grooming policies such as kippahs and hijabs in the workplace; and religious expression in the workplace, which might include an employee’s desire to display (or avoid) some sort of religious symbol or message.
Under the new standard, employers who seek to reject such requests will have to demonstrate that granting these religious accommodations would impose substantial costs. Considerations like administrative costs and modest financial expenditures will be insufficient justification for denying such requests. This impact will likely be felt most directly when it comes to requests to accommodate Sabbath observances. The Court’s opinion indicates that employers will have to consider voluntary shift swaps and modest incentives — such as overtime payments — in order to accommodate a Sabbath-observing employee.
Importantly, this will vary significantly by occupation. For example, while a postal worker might reasonably request time off for the Sunday Sabbath, a coach in the NFL, where games are mostly played on Sundays, cannot.
Similarly, determining whether the financial burdens of accommodation are truly significant will also depend on context. Costs that might be significant for a local grocery store may not be significant for a corporate behemoth like Amazon. Those differences will matter when deciding how much an employer will have to expend when accommodating a particular religious practice.
Finally, the court emphasized that accommodations that trigger deep dissatisfaction from employees — and thereby significantly affect the employer’s business — can qualify as a substantial cost and justify an employer’s decision to deny an accommodation. But the court was careful to constrain these sorts of considerations: An employer cannot claim that she can’t accommodate a religious employee because other employees have expressed dissatisfaction that is based upon their “animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice.” To countenance such bias or hostility would undermine the very purposes of the law — and, in the words of the court, put Title VII “at war with itself.”
To be sure, the significance of Groff is somewhat blunted given that many states have already adopted heightened standards for when religious employees must be accommodated. Before Groff, many employees could still leverage state law protections to secure accommodations. An amicus brief filed by 22 states noted that states with broader protections had not faced significant challenges in administering such legal regimes.
Still, the court’s decision will likely provide long overdue protections to religious employees — fulfilling the long-overdue promise of Title VII. Most notably, the decision likely ensures that religious minorities — whose observances are often out of step with the rhythm of the modern workplace — need not cast aside their religious commitments as the price of employment.
This new standard is mindful of context and careful not to require substantial costs that might undermine a business. At the same time, the court’s decision is clear that employers cannot hide behind minor inconveniences to ignore the requests of their religious employees.
In sum, the court’s decision in Groff — and unanimously so — asks employers and employees to find workable solutions to conflicts between business objectives and faith commitments. In that way, it may provide a useful blueprint for navigating a host of recurring social conflicts across the human condition.
—
The post Groff v. DeJoy is the rare Supreme Court decision that every Jew can celebrate appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire Would Be ‘Devastating’ Without Israeli Freedom to Enforce Terms: Defense Expert
Israeli tanks are being moved, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, in the Golan Heights, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Jim Urquhart
The Biden administration’s Mideast envoy arrived in Israel on Wednesday to advance ceasefire negotiations between Israel and the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah — a deal that one defense expert said could be “devastating” for Israel.
Amos Hochstein, who arrived in Jerusalem after meetings in Beirut earlier in the day, was scheduled to meet with Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer to brief him on Lebanon’s response to the ceasefire proposal, according to a report in Axios. Hochstein was also due to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz on Thursday, the report said.
After a two-hour meeting a day earlier with Nabih Berri, the Hezbollah-aligned Lebanese parliamentary speaker who is leading the Iran-backed terrorist group’s mediation efforts, Hochstein said the proposal was “a real opportunity to bring this conflict to an end.”
Hochstein said his first conversation with Berri was “very constructive and very helpful,” and that “additional progress” was made in a follow-up meeting. He did not stipulate the sticking points of the deal.
But retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi, who leads the Israel Defense and Security Forum, a group of former military commanders, warned that the proposed deal would have disastrous consequences for Israel if it failed to rein in Iran.
“Any agreement with Lebanon will have to include Iran’s full exit from the country, total de-arming of Hezbollah, and the entry of Lebanon into the brotherhood of the moderate Sunni states with Israel,” Aviv told The Algemeiner.
Hochstein’s proposal, based on enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1701, calls for Hezbollah’s withdrawal to north of the Litani River and the disarmament of its forces in southern Lebanon. The buffer zone would be under the jurisdiction of the Lebanese army and UN peacekeeping forces.
For nearly two decades, the UN resolution, which brought an end to the 2006 Second Lebanon War, was largely ignored by Hezbollah, which has continued to wield significant political and military influence in Lebanon. The group amassed a vast arsenal of missiles and constructed an extensive network of tunnels along the Israeli border in violation of the agreement.
As part of the ceasefire deal, Israel has insisted on retaining the right to conduct military operations against Hezbollah if the group attempts to rearm or rebuild its infrastructure — a stipulation that has met resistance from Lebanese officials, who argue it infringes on national sovereignty.
“We will not compromise on our military freedom of action in Lebanon if the agreement is violated. This is a red line. If Lebanon refuses to back down, we will continue to strike and operate deep within Lebanese territory until it complies,” a senior Israeli official was quoted by the Hebrew-language Makor Rishon newspaper as saying.
The anonymous official also said that Lebanon has rejected Israel’s demand for an enhanced monitoring force for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which Israel argued has failed to prevent Hezbollah’s buildup of power in recent years.
Israeli officials were also quoted by Israel’s Channel 12 as saying that a deal could be signed “within a week.”
A senior US official told the news channel: “Significant progress has been made; it is very close. Now is the time to make decisions.”
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, confirmed that the organization had reviewed the ceasefire proposal but emphasized that the decision to cease hostilities now rests with Israel. He also stressed that the terrorist group possesses the capability to sustain its current operational pace over an extended period unless Israel agrees to the proposed terms.
“We are advancing on two fronts: the battlefield and the negotiations. We do not pause our operations on the ground while waiting for the talks to conclude,” Qassem said in a televised address. Behind him was a picture of his slain predecessor, Hassan Nasrallah, who Israel killed in a targeted airstrike in September.
“While the losses we’ve endured are painful, we have resilient leaders with remarkable courage, and we’ve managed to recover and move forward despite the setbacks,” he added.
Avivi stressed that a deal that does not allow Israel the freedom of action necessary to enforce its terms inside Lebanon would threaten Israeli national security and throw away a major opportunity.
“Any deal that doesn’t include Israel’s ability to impose it and prevent any future build up of Hezbollah will be devastating to Israel and will keep Hezbollah and Iranian control over Lebanon,” Avivi said. He added that such an agreement would also result in surrendering a “unique, historical opportunity to liberate Lebanon from the Shiite axis.”
Iran, which is ruled by a Shiite Muslim theocracy, has created what its supporters have dubbed an “axis of resistance” across the Middle East, aimed at destroying Israel and combating US and broader Western influence. For decades, Hezbollah has been the regime’s most powerful proxy.
The post Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire Would Be ‘Devastating’ Without Israeli Freedom to Enforce Terms: Defense Expert first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
James Zogby, Anti-Israel Activist, to Make Bid for Democratic National Committee Vice Chair
US Senator-elect Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) speaks during the second day of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on Aug. 20, 2024. Photo: Credit: USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect
James Zogby, a prominent critic of Israel and president of the Arab American Institute, is preparing to run for vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), a position that would allow him to exert significant influence over the strategy and inner workings of the primary left-wing political party in the US.
Zogby, who has been a member of the DNC for decades and an advocate for the Palestinian cause, told Politico on Tuesday that he plans on officially launching his bid for party leadership in the coming days. The academic and lecturer claimed that US President-elect Donald Trump’s resounding victory in the Nov. 5 presidential election left him feeling despondent and angry, motivating him to seek a powerful position within the Democratic Party.
“I’m on the DNC for 32 yrs: 16 on the Executive Committee, 11 as chair of the resolutions committee, & on the Unity/Reform Committee. I’m pushing for budget transparency & accountability, & party democracy. But I guess all I’ll ever be is that ‘pro-Palestinian’ guy. It’s bigotry,” Zogby posted on X/Twitter on Tuesday after his announcement was published in Politico.
Zogby has established himself as a fierce opponent of Israel, arguing that the Jewish state has enacted a “brutal” regime of repression and discrimination against the Palestinian people. In the year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s slaughter of 1,200 people throughout southern Israel last Oct. 7, he has blamed the Israeli government for “making a desperately bad situation worse” by causing “acute shortages of food, medicine, and water.” He asserted that Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza are counterproductive because they “only create more resistance and new recruits for Hamas.”
In the months leading up to the US presidential election, Zogby openly criticized Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for campaigning with former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney. He claimed that Cheney’s presence on the campaign trail alienated Arab American voters, citing her long-standing support for American military intervention in the Middle East.
In 2019, Zogby took aim at Cheney for criticizing US Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), two of the most vocal opponents of Israel in Congress.
“[Liz Cheney] your obsession w/ targeting [Rashida Tlaib] or [Ilhan Omar] smacks either of a deep-seated anti-Arab/Muslim bigotry or crass politics designed to prey on the bigotry of your ‘base.’ In either case it’s disgraceful. Your party’s been playing this game for a decade. Shame,” Zogby wrote on X/Twitter at the time.
In a post-election analysis, Zogby argued that Harris’s failure to address the so-called “genocide” in Gaza eroded her support among valuable constituencies.
“Of particular note, they would not recognize the impact of the genocide in Gaza on not only Arab American voters, but also on key components of their Obama coalition, young, progressive, and non-white voters,” Zogby wrote about the Harris campaign.
In the aftermath of Harris’s shellacking at the polls, the Democratic Party has scrambled to rebrand itself in order to attract new voters. Despite insistence by many progressives that the Israel-Hamas war capsized Harris’s campaign, there remains scant evidence her support for the Jewish state proved decisive in the election. Data compiled by Blueprint, a data analytics firm allied with the Democratic Party, indicated that Harris’s support for Israel ranked among the bottom concerns for the electorate. In fact, the poll showed that Harris suffered more damage by presenting as too supportive of the Palestinians.
The post James Zogby, Anti-Israel Activist, to Make Bid for Democratic National Committee Vice Chair first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Yale University to Hold Student Referendum on Divestment From Israel
Graduates protest the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist terror group Hamas, during the commencement at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, US, May 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Michelle McLoughlin
Yale University will soon hold a student referendum on the issue of divestment from Israel, an initiative spearheaded by a pro-Hamas group which calls itself the Sumud Coalition (SC).
According to the Yale Daily News, students will consider “three questions” which ask whether Yale should “disclose” its investments in armaments manufacturers — “including those arming Israel” — divest from such holdings, and spend money on “Palestinian scholars and students.”
The paper added that a path for the referendum was cleared when a petition SC circulated amassed some 1,500 signatures, or “roughly 22 percent of the student body.” Despite that over three-fourths of Yale students did not sign the petition, its proponents — including a representative of the Yale College Council (YCC), an ostensibly neutral body — have taken to describing it as “so popular.” The final vote could wind up being even less representative of the opinion of the student body, as it only has to be approved by “50 percent or more of respondents” who constitute “at least one third of the student body.” Should that happen, Sumud Coalition will claim victory and forward the results to Yale University president Maurie McInnis, with a note claiming that SC has received a mandate from the people.
Proponents of the referendum have openly stated that they are employing on its behalf arguments which conceal their intent to compromise Israel’s national security. The Yale Daily News noted in its report that YCC Senator and SC member Sovy Pham has said the group wrote the referendum questions so as to “reframe the public perception of the pro-Palestinian and pro-divestment movement on campus.”
Summarizing Pham’s comments, the paper continued, “The referendum would change the depiction of the issue from ‘Zionist vs. anti-Zionist,’ ‘Muslims & Arabs vs. Jews,’ and ‘Left vs. Right’ to Yale + New Haven communities vs. trustees and provost” in a way that portrayed the movement as ‘Big us, small them’ … In this way, the presenters claimed, the referendum would unify the campus and surrounding New Haven communities.”
Yale University’s Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility (ACIR) has already ruled against divesting from armaments manufacturers, saying in April that “it does not believe that such activity meets the criteria for divestment” because “this manufacturing supports socially necessary uses, such as law enforcement and national security.” The decision set off a raging protest which resulted in the assault of a Jewish student and the arrest of some 47 students who had trespassed Beinecke Plaza, where they vowed to abstain from food unless the university acceded to their demands.
As police entered, a mass of students formed to chant, “Officer, officer, can’t you see? You’re on the wrong side of history” and other slogans comparing the officers, many of whom were Black or non-white, to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). However, the officers ultimately cleared the protesters from the area by 8 am, forcing them to move their demonstration off-campus. Displeased that order had been restored, some students proceeded to verbally abuse the officers, calling them “useless pigs” and shouting “shame on you” at them.
Sumud Coalition’s renewed divestment campaign comes amid concerns that the anti-Zionist student movement is aimed at weakening the United States morally and militarily.
“The movement contains militant elements pushing it toward a wider, more severe campaign focused on property destruction and violence properly described as domestic terrorism,” researcher Ryan Mauro wrote in the recently published report, “Marching Toward Violence: The Domestic Anti-Israeli Protest Movement,” a project of the Capital Research Center (CRC). “It demands the ‘dismantlement’ of America’s ‘colonialist,’ ‘imperialist,’ or ‘capitalist,’ system, often calling for the US to be abolished as a country.”
The group that is most responsible for the anti-Israel protest movement is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Mauro explained.
Drawing on statements issued and actions taken by SJP and their collaborators, Mauro made the case that toolkits published by SJP herald Hamas for perpetrating mass casualties of civilians; SJP has endorsed Iran’s attacks on Israel as well as its stated intention to overturn the US-led world order; and other groups under its umbrella have called on followers to “Bring the Intifada Home.” Such activities, the report explained, accelerated after Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, which pro-Hamas groups perceived as an inflection point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an opportunity. By flooding the internet and college campuses with agitprop and staging activities — protests or vandalisms — they hoped to manufacture a critical mass of youth support for their ideas, thus creating an army of revolutionaries willing to adopt Hamas’s aims as their own.
Beyond ideological concerns, Yale could be harmed financially if it adopts elements of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. JLens, a Jewish investor network that is part of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), published a report in September showing that colleges and universities will lose tens of billions of dollars collectively from their endowments if they capitulate to demands to divest from Israel and companies that do business with it.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Yale University to Hold Student Referendum on Divestment From Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login