Monday, September 23, 2019

Religious exemption for gender discrimination?

The latest controversy between freedom of religion and discrimination laws have taken place in North Carolina. A 51-year-old sheriff’s deputy named Manuel Torres is filing a lawsuit, claiming that he was fired from the department because he refused to train a female employee alone due to his religious beliefs. This belief is one most commonly called the Billy Graham Rule. Billy Graham was an evangelist figure who proposed those beliefs. The reasoning behind this belief was to prevent temptation on the male part, exhibit integrity, and to be isolated from any instance pertaining to sexual misconduct. Graham himself refused to have alone time, eat, or even travel with a woman who was not his wife. From this, Torres believes that his religious beliefs prohibit him, as a married man, from being alone with a woman for an extended period of time if she is not his wife. Therefore, he believes his refusal to be alone with a female coworker should be accepted as a means of his right to free exercise of religion.

Torres asked his sergeant for religious exemption and was immediately denied. Torres then went to his sergeants’ superiors to obtain exemption and was met with retaliation from his sergeant. In an altercation between two civilians where a gun was present Torres needed backup, of which his sergeant refused to send. After that incident, he was soon fired without explanation. Torres and his legal team suggest that religious discrimination and a violation of Torres’ first amendment rights was the reason in which he was fired, after asking repeatedly for a religious exemption. Torres is also claiming a “loss of income and benefits; loss of quality and enjoyment of life; (and) loss of reputation” in addition to monetary compensation. Although this case has not yet been decided upon, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the court’s decision, and whether they will privilege Torres’ religious obligation supported by the first amendment, or North Carolina’s discrimination law in which Torres potentially violated.

            The first amendment upholds the truth that one has the right to free exercise of religion. Therefore, the question that comes into play is whether or not Torres should have been fired from a public office for upholding his religious beliefs? Torres was willing to do every other aspect of the job besides train with a woman who was not his wife for a long period of time. However, what happens when one’s first amendment right clashes with existing discrimination laws? It is also worth noting that there are reasonable alternatives that could have trained the female employee and simultaneously uphold Torres’ religious obligations. A religious exemption has been used to opt-out a variety of practices. One of the most common is a religious exemption from the draft. There were some religious sects that were granted religious exemptions from joining the draft on the grounds of religious beliefs. Joining the draft as well as discrimination laws are both existing laws that society must adhere to, but why is a religious exemption from joining the draft seen differently than a religious exemption to train a female employee alone?

            Although Manuel Torres and Billy Graham’s ideologies surrounding their religious duties are not the beliefs of the majority, it does not mean that they don’t have the right to free exercise. Some might say that nowhere in the holy text does it say that a married man cannot have any interactions with a woman who is not your wife, but who are we as a society to say what beliefs should and should not be allowed to be exercised. If one feels it is their religious obligation to not interact with a female for a long period of time alone, who is the government and or employer of a public office to try and restrict that right despite it being written in the constitution. If anything, the free exercise clause in the First Amendment was used to protect then current and potential religious minorities against the tyrannical majority. Face value, the non-toleration of “discrimination” based on gender is a good thing that promotes diversity and inclusion in the workplace and is applied across the board for all peoples, both religious and anti-religious. However, despite this same rule being applied to everyone, it does not go against everyone’s rights. It is however hostile to Torres’ religious obligation to stay the utmost faithful to his wife by not interacting with other women for long periods of time, such as training a new female employee. And to that point, this is not just a belief that Torres holds, but a religious obligation. Who are we as a society to say that Torres must choose between making a living, and fulfilling a religious obligation? If that is the case, then we are preferencing everybody BUT Torres. Allowing Torres an exemption from training a female employee on religious grounds, no matter what the moral belief is should be protected by the first amendment free exercise clause.

10 comments:

  1. This is very interesting and unique. However, it doesn't seem like it comes from a place where Torres is negatively discriminating against his female co-workers. If he were to say that women do not belong on the force and for that reason he won't train them then that would be a different scenario. But if Torres is able to prove to the court that since following this religion he has kept his distance from other women, outside of the workplace, then his belief should be justified. It is not up to the court to decide if this belief is "right" or "wrong" or even if it's "true." What they need to prove is that Torres truly believes in it and abides by it outside of the workspace.
    Call it gender discrimination, but his right is his right and it causes no harm to anyone. Another police officer can train a female officer just as fine.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This case does seem to violate Torres' First Amendment rights, and at one point seemed to put his life purposively in danger. I could see Torres and his legal team able to take two approaches in the legal case: attempt to prove that the seargent was discriminating against him based on religion, and if they are unable to prove that, then they can pursue a wrongful firing claim. I think the fact that Torres was denied backup in a case where a suspect with a gun was present is ample evidence that he was being descriminated against. In addition, when he tried to reach out to the seargent's superior and was confronted by the seargent is definitely a breach of code. Since there were other options to train the female officer and the police decided to just fire Torres due to his religious beliefs is an infrindgement on his First Amendment rights.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe that the firing of Torres did violate his First Amendment right. He has the right to exercise his religion, and in this case he was not doing anything harmful, but simply upholding his beliefs. There were also other officers that could train the female deputy. His refusal to do so was due to his religious beliefs, so he should not have been punished by being fired because of these beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with all the above comments. This case demonstrates clear religious discrimination against Torres. As we have discussed with cases such as United States v Ballard, Wisconsin v Yoder, and United States v Seeger it is not the role of the Court or the government to determine what is "true" or correct about someone's religious beliefs. Discrimination laws are in place to protect people like Torres and the woman that he was meant to train and I think finding a different officer to do the training would have adequately avoided discrimination on either side.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with the author's opinion. Although Torres apparently violated North Carolina's discrimination laws, I think his request for a religious exemption is reasonable, and he did approach a sergeant for an exemption rather than simply telling the female employee that he could not train her. I feel like this case relates to Braunfeld v. Brown, in which the Orthodox Jews had to choose between their business and their religion. This is a small portion of Torres' job, and his refusal does not substantially burden society because another deputy can train the female employee. Therefore, I do not think he should have been fired, and I find the sergeant's actions more discriminatory than Torres' actions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Although this case may seem discriminatory in nature, if Torres is able to prove to a court that these beliefs come from a purely religious standpoint then that should be honored. If not honored, I see this as a violation of Torres’ first amendment right of free exercise and as religious discrimination. The only question I do have is if the fact that this is a public office means that is an office that is representative of the government. If so, would it be an establishment of religion if his views were allowed?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe that Torres' first amendment right was violated in this situation because his religion did not allow him to be around a woman for a long period of time and he was abiding by that. There are many factors that play into this situation however. The go-to response from the government will be gender discrimination, however, as mentioned by Jala, were there other workers that could have trained her while also respecting Torres' religion? A question that also is to be raised is how much of Torres' beliefs and actions align with his religion, this is a question of sincerity, however, and as we have discussed in class this week, the government should not be the judge of sincerity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that firing Torres was unconstitutional as it violated his right to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. I think Sarah's point is important to note as I did disagree with the ruling in Braunfeld v. Brown on the basis that it forced Orthodox Jews to choose between their religion and their job. I hold that by coercing Orthodox Jewish merchants to stay closed for one day besides the already required day of rest, the statute unjustly discriminated against Orthodox Jews and made it harder for Orthodox Jews to recruit more members, thereby violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similarly in this case, I think Torres' Free Exercise is being violated because he is being unfairly burdened to choose between getting paid more or staying true to his religious beliefs. Furthermore, as ruled in United States v. Ballard, the courts cannot decide the verity of a person's beliefs, and I personally believe that Torres' sincerity is evident by his persistence in 2017 to receive a religious exemption on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I also agree that not firing Torres, in this case, is unconstitutional. I agree with Evelyn in the sense that if he had refused to train his female employee and also said that they should not be allowed to work there, then that would have been a case of discrimination against the female, but since he did not, he should not be punished. He is not hurting anyone in this case. If he truly believes that being around another female is against his religious beliefs, then he should be supported. Torres is having to choose between keeping this job to provide for his family and following his religious beliefs, and that is not okay. He should be protected by the Free Exercise Clause and not be put in this situation.

    ReplyDelete