Would you still choose to take a job if it required you to be sworn in by an oath that you don’t believe in? This is the main conflict that was presented by the case Bolden-Hardge v. California Office of the State Controller. Just a few years into her career working for the government, Brianna Bolden-Hardge was offered a new position at the California Office of the State Controller. This job required that before Brianna accepted the position, that she would take a loyalty oath pledging her allegiance to both state and federal governments. Brianna was a devout Jehovah’s Witness, and believed that it would be a violation of her religious beliefs to pledge her primary allegiance to federal and state governments.
Brianna claimed that her allegiance was first and foremost to God, and that she would not take up arms. She tried to come up with a proposal to have the oath slightly altered so that she felt it would not be a violation of her religious beliefs, and the Controller's Office rejected the proposal. After the Controller’s Office decided to reject the new oath proposal they also took back Brianna’s job offer. Brianna had no choice but to return to her previous, lower paying job. Brianna decided to go to the courts with a failure-to-accommodate claim against the Controller's Office under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. She also claimed that the office refusing to accommodate her deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Brianna argued that taking the oath would force her to choose between her religious beliefs, and having a government job. The defendants would go on to argue that the oath does not require the people saying it to pledge loyalty to the government over religion, so it should not present a conflict.
The defendants go into detail talking about how the oath does not explicitly state that you are pledging an ultimate or primary allegiance to the federal and state constitutions, but rather just an oath of allegiance. The defendants also argue that taking the oath is critical to ensuring that the government's employees are fully uniform and committed to serving the federal and state constitutions. There was some concern that allowing customized oaths could lead to a slippery slope, and cause administrative and legal difficulties down the road. Additionally they argued that Brianna’s claims that her First Amendment rights were violated held no weight because her claim needed to be filed in California’s two-year litigation period.
The court ruled in favor of Brianna for the failure to accommodate religion claim. However, due to her not filing the claim for violation of her free exercise in a timely manner the court was unable to move forward with that ruling. The biggest constitutional issue at hand here is if Brianna had filed her claim in time that her First Amendment Free Exercise right was violated, would the court have ruled in her favor? Or in other words, could refusal to take a government oath because you believe it goes against your sincerely held religious beliefs be permissible under the free exercise clause of the first amendment? I believe that the answer should be yes.
Education v. Barnette. In this case Jehovah's Witnesses students were expelled for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. The Supreme Court ended up ruling in favor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and made the decision that the school cannot force the students to recite the pledge of allegiance. Both Barnette and Bolden-Hardge involve governments requiring an expression of allegiance that Jehovah’s Witnesses say is against their religious conscience. The government should not be able to force a person to express commitments, in terms that violate their religious beliefs just to receive a government benefit or position.
I agree with your argument that the refusal to take a government oath because you believe it goes against your sincerely held religious beliefs should be permissible under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As you stated, it is important to note that she was not saying she would not take an oath at all. She just wanted it to accommodate her religious beliefs. This places a substantial indirect burden because she would be forced to go back to her low-paying job. The government was essentially making her choose between going against her religion and taking this oath to make more money, or going back to her low-paying job. This should never be a decision anyone has to make because of their religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance. In general, an oath to uphold government standard's during your career should be able to be slightly tweaked so that employees that follow different religions, such as Briana Bolden-Hardge, feel comfortable with accepting it. Their unwillingness to change the oath and argument over slippery slope, then begs for another question to be addressed: would they rather have employees who do not believe in the strength of the oath to make it under a false promise or without willingness to actually uphold it? The government making her choose between this job and her religion is coercive and infringes on her Free Exercise Rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that Brianna's religious beliefs should have been respected. I understand that the government wants its employees to be loyal, but I don't think refusing to say certain words means someone cannot be a good employee. Her willingness to serve the government should matter more than the exact wording of an oath. I think the government could have handled this situation more fairly.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me was that Brianna was willing to take an oath, but she was only going to do so with one that doesn't go against her faith. I understand why the government wants consistent rules for its employees, but changing a few words does not necessarily change someone's ability to do the job. I think her request deserved more consideration before her job offer was withdrawn.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that Bolden-Hardge should have been given a religious accommodation, especially since she was not asking to avoid the oath entirely but simply to modify its wording. I think your comparison to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette is particularly relevant because both cases involve the government requiring individuals to express allegiance in a way that conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, I also think there is an important distinction between verbally pledging allegiance to the government and actually fulfilling the responsibilities of a government employee. If Bolden-Hardge was willing to uphold the Constitution and perform her job duties, I don't see why modifying the oath would necessarily undermine the government's interest in ensuring employee loyalty. The government should be able to require employees to follow the law without requiring them to make statements that conflict with their religious convictions.
ReplyDeleteI agree. If Bolden-Hardge was prepared to uphold the Constitution and perform her duties, allowing an alternative version of the oath would not necessarily compromise the government’s interests. In my view, the government should evaluate an employee’s ability to fulfill the requirements of the position rather than assume that a religious objection to particular wording indicates a lack of loyalty.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that changing the wording of the oath would not really affect Brianna's ability to do her job. I also though the comparison to Barnette was really interesting because both cases involve Jehovah Witnesses being asked to express loyalty in a way that conflicts their beliefs. I think the government should make small accommodations like this, especially when they don't interfere with someone ability to do their job.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think the government doesn't really have a strong enough reason to not adjust the wording of the oath in order to accommodate sincere religious beliefs. I think this is a big case where an accommodation would be seen as a valid tool. Brianna is not risking public safety by adjusting the terms of an oath, therefore in my opinion this would be a relatively low grade accommodation especially in comparison to others that the government had given out. I get the neutrality argument that everyone has to do it, but asking someone to express a belief that directly conflicts with their own seems unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete