This past Monday, the Butler County court has dismissed most of her claims.
Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz held that the county's policy of Christmas is neither discriminatory nor a violation of an individuals rights, and the Sixth Circuit Court has already established Christmas as a legal, paid holiday. In her ruling, Litkovitz wrote: "Plaintiff (Edelstein) has not alleged any facts to show there are unique circumstances in this case such that application of the paid Christmas holiday policy violated her fundamental rights or discriminated against her based on her religion." Litkovitz also claims that "Butler County's policy...while not adding certain Jewish holidays, is not arbitrary, nor does it deny Edelstein equal protection of the laws."Moreover, Litkovitz concluded that Stephens, Gmoser, and Ferguson did not cross the legal line in bad mouthing Edelstein. Her ruling was based upon the "shocks the conscience" test, in which an action is understood to either violate or uphold the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Litkovitz also claims that "while statements plaintiff attributes to Stephens may have hampered her job search, her allegations do not suggest Stephens' actions and statements curtailed plaintiff's freedom to work in any sense." Since the men were stating an option, these defamation claims aren't reasonable because opinions are formally protected under the Ohio Constitution.
Thus, the question at hand: is Edelstein's denial of receiving paid leave for her High Holy Days a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?
I believe that yes, denying her the right to exercise these religious days are a clear violation of free exercise. Moreover, I also believe that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. While I do understand how accommodating every religion and every religious holiday can lead to a "slippery slope," establishing Christmas as a legally paid holiday is not facially neutral.
First and foremost, requiring Edelstein to use vacation days and work extra hours is unreasonable. 8 days is a substantial amount of time when put in context. These are days that should be used for true vacations or emergencies, not religious holidays. This puts Edelstein at a significant disadvantage compared to her co-workers whom do not observe these days. What's more is that not granting her these days ultimately brings her to a difficult cross road: be burdened by the costs of not going to work, or miss out on celebrating her religion. In this sense, it would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause because she might be compelled her to go to work instead; thus, not being able to practice and enjoy these High Holy Days of her religion.
This case specifically reminds me of Sherbet v. Verner, in which Adeil Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, was fired from her job after she refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. Sherbert was denied benefits from the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act because she "failed without good cause" to accept and pursue a job. Similarly, the court ruled that Edelstein's claims are "nuts." Both cases apply a same reasoning: a religious obligation confronted with some sort of financial burden. The appellants proved their sincerity towards their claims by choosing their religion over their employment sake. While the court ruled in Sherbert v. Verner that this imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her faith, Edelstein's ruling proved less favorable.
Additionally, whereas establishing Christmas as a legal, paid holiday is constitutional according to the Sixth Circuit court, other religious holidays are not. I took a look on the Butler County District Court website to view their holiday schedule. Christmas Day is the only religious holiday they have off. This, I believe is a violation of the Establishment Clause because they are not adhering to other religious holidays. Though I do see how some might argue that Christmas has become more of a secular holiday now more than a religious one, I still do not see the justification in selecting one religion over another. Additionally, in order to avoid a "slippery slope" situation, this policy must be facially neutral rather than the clear bias towards Christianity.
Lastly, the remarks made by Stephens, Gmoser, and Ferguson, although they passed the "shocks the conscience" test, were still hurtful and discriminatory. These comments, although protected, still posed a significant burden to Edelstein. As Edelstein wrote in a court document, "As a result of the abuse of power and disregard of the law by these public officials, plaintiff has been effectively denied the ability to become employed in her chosen profession, rendering her license useless as a means to support her family." Thus, we see again the substantial financial and relgious cross road for Edelstein.
Conclusively, though I recognize the compelling holdings of the court to dismiss Edelstein's case, it nonetheless remains vital to understand the implications this has on herself, her family, as well as her religious obligations. By requiring her to use vacation days that could have been put to good use elsewhere to practice her High Holy Days, she is being denied freedom to exercise. Moreover, establishing Christmas as a legal paid holiday is not a facially neutral statue, and thus, a violation of the Establishment Clause.
8 comments:
I agree with you that the county's vacation policy is discriminatory towards Edelstein and is in violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause. There is a clear preference in this case towards Christianity and those who practice it. You mentioned that "in order to avoid a slippery slope situation, this policy must be facially neutral rather than the clear bias towards Christianity." I think one way the county could do this would be for them to increase the number of vacation days and remove the Christmas Holiday as days off. This way, each individual can have days to practice their religion without one religious holiday being preferred. While I understand this may give non-religious people extra days off, it will at the very least be neutral among all religions and no longer violate the First Amendment.
I agree that denying her the right to receive paid leave in order to observe religious High Holy Days is an infringement on her free exercise clause, however it is very important to keep in mind the extent to which this can spiral out of control. Allowing employees to take off whenever they claim to have a religious holiday to observe is a very slippery slope. This reminds me of the case study we did on the first day of class addressing students in an Indiana school district to staying home from school for religious purposes. Providing them this exemption, and others in similar situations opens the doors, and runs the risk, for anyone to request a day off whenever they please. Where it gets tricky however is, as previously stated, denying Edelstein these days off is a clear infringement on her free exercise clause. I think the right thing to do in situations like such is to widely recognize certain High Holy Days as paid absence days for all, like Christmas. This would need to be done in a facially neutral way, not discriminating or excluding any religion, while also not recognizing every minor holiday of every religion. The fact that Edelstein asked for eight days off in October seems a little excessive so that is where a law like such should come into play.
I agree that it is should up for debate about whether the state employees receive Christmas off, although the court has precedent that it is acceptable to give state employees off work. While I see the case for religious discrimination, I do not believe that the state is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. All employees have personal days, which are paid and to be used at their discretion. The state says nothing about the way they can be used, or when they can be used and each employee (I assume) is given the same amount. In addition, it does not sound like the employee ran out of days, so she was able to take off work as needed. In that case, the policy is facially neutral because all employees have the same ability to take off work, while being paid, for what they need. If this employee decides that she wants to take off eight days in the month of October for religious holidays, than that is her prerogative, much like any employee of the state can take off for observance of their respective religions. The state is not preventing the practice of religion, so I do not believe there is an excessive burden, in terms of preventing free exercise, on the employee. In fact, if the state were to say that employees could have however many days off they want, aside from personal days, to practice their religion, that could create a scenario where magistrates are deciding who is and is not deserving, or a situation like Noa described where people just take off using religion as an excuse. I believe that the only truly facially neutral way this law can exist, with the most minimal government government interpretation of religion, would be to continue with the policy as it exists, or expanding the amount of days off if deemed necessary, and allow employees to decide when to practice their religion.
I do not find the only paid off day, being Christmas to be facially neutral. That being said, she is asking for a paid leave for eight days to observe her religion, that seems a bit excessive, it would be similar to a Catholic demanding paid for Holy Week. Her lawsuit would be much stronger if she could provide facts showing the paid Christmas holiday violated her fundamental right or discriminated against her based on her religion. There should be some sort of accommodation that allows people of a minority religion to a have a day of paid leave to celebrate their religious holiday of choice, taking eight days imposes a serious economic burden on most businesses. There are many people that would use their religion as an excuse to take a random off day.
In 2018, there are ten federal holidays. The only one that would be considered a religious one is Christmas. Companies should have discretion when it comes to giving employees off for federal holidays, particularly since it may be hard to conduct business on a day when almost all other businesses are closed. What some companies have done is they have reduced the number of set company holidays and increased the number of floating holidays that employees can utilize as they see fit. On average, US employees receive eight paid holidays and a greater number of companies are incorporating floating holidays to allow employees with various religious and cultural celebrations to utilize the holidays as they see fit. It is important to be aware that most companies still have some set holidays, including Christmas Day. In this case, even if the Sixth Circuit Court did not give Christmas Day off and instead made it a floating holiday, this employee would still have to use vacation or personal days for seven of the eight High Holy Days. It is not possible for businesses to operate at optimal efficiently while allowing employees to take off all religious holidays in addition to vacation days. While I do not think the Sixth Circuit Court is violating the Establishment Clause since these are federal holidays and this is a court, steps can be taken to help employees who celebrate various holidays from Good Friday, Yom Kippur to Diwali. To alleviate some of this problem, a few floating holidays should be put in place so that workers can freely express their religion without consequences.
I believe there is a strong argument that the choice of Edelstein to use vacation days or work on Holy Days place a substantial burden on her causing her to choose between her religion or be at a financial disadvantage, whereas those who practice Christianity do not receive this burden. Although, I am also to see the argument that the otherwise Christian holiday of Christmas has devolved into a more secular holiday, which accounts for the payed day off. I believe that an argument can quite possibly be made therefore that the body is favoring secularity and disfavoring anyones exercise of religion.
I would argue that eight days off for religious purposes is excessive especially considering how few federal holidays there currently are. Furthermore, as stated in prior comments, the only paid federal holiday that can be considered as religious is Christmas. While the argument may stand that Christmas should be removed as a federal holiday because of its religious connotations; it is simply too excessive to have eight full days off strictly because of religious practices. This would simply lead to a slippery slope in which the government would be forced to cater to the requests of every religion and then there would be far too few work days for economic gain.
I would say that requiring her to take these days off is a substantial burden and puts her in a more stressed position than her other colleagues. I don't think that the people were not in the wrong for sharing the issue. I think that in the case of Christmas it has turned into a more secular holiday that is widely celebrated. But with all that being said, I do think that she should have been allowed to take holiday days off the same as Christmas.
Post a Comment