Northwest Religious Liberty Association Honors Oregon Speaker Dave Hunt

Representative Dave Hunt, speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, was awarded by the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) at the Oregon Conference Campmeeting in Gladstone on July 17, 2009 for his legislative sponsorship of the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, Senate Bill 786 (SB 786) which was signed into law by Governor Ted Kulongoski.  There were 2,056 people in attendance.

3 states still ban religious clothing for teachers (Associated Press)

EXCERPT:

PORTLAND, Ore. — A law backed by the Ku Klux Klan nearly a century ago to keep Catholics out of public schools is still on the books in Oregon, one of the last states in the nation to prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing in classrooms.

Both Pennsylvania and Nebraska have similar laws, which try to balance the constitutional conflict between protecting students from the establishment of religion in schools and the rights of teachers to express their beliefs through their dress.

Oregon’s law, originally aimed at priest collars and nun habits, survived a legal challenge in the 1980s by a Sikh convert who wanted to wear her turban in the classroom and was recently upheld by the state’s Legislature.

A Muslim teacher in Pennsylvania lost a similar challenge in 1991 to that state’s even older law for the right to wear a headscarf at school. So far, it has not posed any serious legal issues in Nebraska.

That such a law still exists was a surprise for many Oregonians who learned about it when Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act in July, allowing workers to wear religious clothing on the job.

…

Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt wanted to include teachers in the new workplace law. But it was opposed by the ACLU during a legislative session dominated by the recession and one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

Dave Fidanque, ACLU executive director for Oregon, said the law helps ensure religious neutrality in public schools even though times have changed. “It’s not an easy issue,” he said.

Schools have been battlegrounds because “those who feel very strongly that their particular brand of religion is best feel the need to have their religion endorsed by public schools to attract more followers to their beliefs,” Fidanque said.

(Read the full article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7tADnxuR79MJPcf7h0C8jxGSMGQD9AFCJK00 )

Civil Rights Pioneer E.E. Cleveland talks about meeting Martin Luther King, Jr.

On August 30, 2009, renowned evangelist Edward Earl Cleveland died at Huntsville Hospital in Huntsville, Alabama. He was 88.  Cleveland worked for more than 60 years as a Seventh-day Adventist pastor, evangelist, church leader, teacher, and civil rights leader.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. attended one of Cleveland’s tent meetings in 1954 in Montgomery and the two created a lasting friendship.  Also in attendance for at least one night of the meetings were local seamstress, Rosa Parks and the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy.

Cleveland marched in several civil rights marches, including the March on Washington.  Cleveland describes his involvement in the civil rights movement in a sermon he delivered during Black History Month on February 11, 2006. 

 
E. E. Cleveland – Black History Month 02-11-06 @ Yahoo!7 Video

Tennesee governor signs Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law

 
On July 1, 2009, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law.  Introduced in February, House Bill 1598 requires Tennessee courts to apply the “compelling state interest” test to cases in which a law substantially burdens one’s right of free exercise of religion. The state now has the burden of proving that the law furthers a “compelling state interest” and is the “least restrictve means” of furthering that interest.

To those unfamiliar with first amendment litigation, this may seem like a confusing set of terms, but the new law takes a very important step forward. Before this law was in place, the Tennessee legislature could pass a law that applied equally to everybody but could inadvertently disrupt somebody’s free exercise of religion.  For instance, the state could pass a law that all high school examinations were to be held on Sunday.  If a student who had a religious objection refused to take the test on Sunday and requested accommodation such as another day, the state could deny the accommodation on the grounds that the law applied equally to all students and that this student had not been discriminated against because of his religion.   It would be a “facially neutral” law that did not “discriminate” against anybody.

This new law would require the state to prove that the Sunday test was essential to further a “compelling governmental interest” and that it was the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest. In other words, the state would have to demonstrate that it had a very good reason for scheduling the testing for Sunday and a very good reason for denying a student an opportunity to schedule around it. If the state still refuses and the student has to sue in order to graduate from high school and the student wins, the court may award attorney’s fees and court costs as reimbursement for the expenses of litigation.

This new law is a local state response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) which ruled that a similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by the U.S. Congress was unconstitutional.  Tennessee joins 15 other states that have now enacted religious freedom acts.

(Please note that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which addresses any type of government action in  Tennessee is not to be confused with the recently passed Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) which requires Oregon employers to make reasonable attempts to accommodate religious observances of holy days and religions dress of their employers.)

When work and religion collide

Because religious beliefs are protected and there is a more diverse workforce, religious accommodation issues have increased.

This article was written by originally published in the July 19, 2009 Zanesville TimesRecorder and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

By Jim Evans

This is not your father’s workplace. A snapshot of today’s workforce looks dramatically different than it did a generation ago. Our workplaces are comprised of young people, senior citizens, and every age in between. Women work effectively in jobs that were traditionally held by men. Persons with disabilities contribute in ways never dreamed of before, and people of various races work side-by-side. Not only that, our workforce encompasses vastly different religious faiths, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Islamic, Hindus, Buddhists, and a myriad of many other traditional and non-traditional religions. It’s not unusual for people of deep religious faith to work along side atheists and agnostics.

Our forefathers founded this country on the premise of freedom of religion, but it took the Civil Rights Act to make religious discrimination illegal in the workplace. Prior to 1964, many employers freely exercised their prerogative to not hire anyone whose religion vastly differed from their own. Today, things aren’t that simple. Because religious beliefs are protected and there is a more diverse workforce, religious accommodation issues have increased. In 1998, there were 1,786 religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC. Ten years later, that number almost doubled to roughly 3,273 complaints. Although a diverse workforce is a source of strength for an organization, ironically it can simultaneously be a source of interpersonal conflict and liability.

Today’s employer has the obligation to assure that all employees are treated with respect, regardless of their religious faith. They are required to make reasonable exceptions to workplace policies and practices so employees of faith have the freedom to practice their religion at work, as long as the accommodation doesn’t cause an undue hardship. The challenge for employers is that requests for religious accommodations touch on almost every aspect of employment, and they often conflict with traditional workplace policy and practice. Whether and how to accommodate must be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, exceptions to strict dress codes may have to be made so an employee of faith can wear religious garb on the job, or display tattoos or piercings professed by the employee’s religion. However, some dress accommodations may be considered an undue hardship when the garb presents safety issues for the employee or others.

Armed with their rights, workers are sometimes vocal about their religion at work, because their religious teachings encourage followers to proselytize their beliefs to others. However, this right to proselytize to coworkers and customers must be balanced with the rights of those who ask them to refrain.

Religious accommodations sometimes focus on decorating of work spaces. If an employer allows personal items to decorate work spaces, an employee would normally have the right to decorate with religious objects. However, if that workspace is in public view, the employer may be able to rightfully deny the accommodation on the premise that the employee’s religious beliefs might be misconstrued as being representative of the company’s.

Employees often request time off for religious holidays or days of worship, or may want work breaks and separate areas to pray. Even special dietary food options for company picnics may be requested based on religious tenet. Regularly assigned job duties might also need to be considered for accommodation, as was the case when a group of pharmacists turned customers away, refusing to dispense birth control pills based on their own personal religious beliefs.

The majority of employees asking for religious accommodations are sincere in their beliefs, but some requests are made under the cloak of religion, but are based, in reality, on personal preference. Employers are expected to be able to discern the difference. Accommodations based on personal preferences are not required. According to the EEOC, religious beliefs are concerned with “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death” but does not include social, political, or economic philosophies, or personal preferences. Employers may inquire to determine if the request is based on a religious doctrine. A point of caution though. Religion covers not only traditional religions, but also religions that are new or uncommon. A religion doesn’t have to be part of a formal church or sect, and can be subscribed to by a small number of people. Beliefs may seem illogical, but it may be a religion just the same.

There are no easy cookie-cutter answers to making religious accommodations. Each request must be considered on the facts and circumstances, and in consideration of guidelines issued by the EEOC and the Courts. Links that offer guidance are found on the EEOC’s Web site at www. eeoc.gov. Although employers initially decide if it is reasonable to accommodate, it may end up that the EEOC or courts second guesses their decision.

Jim Evans is President of JK Evans & Associates LLC, a Zanesville-based human resource-consulting firm serving throughout Ohio. Jim can be reached at jime@evansandassociates.com.  You can visit Evans and Associates at http://www.evansandassociates.com

Governor signs Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Northwest Religious Liberty Association
Press Release – July 21, 2009

The Stage Was Set

On a sweltering Friday summer evening, and just two minutes prior to going on stage before approximately 2,000 Seventh-day Adventist Christians at the Gladstone, Oregon Campmeeting, the Honorable Representative Dave Hunt (D), Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Oregon Legislature, informed the president and staff of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association that Governor Ted Kulongoski had quietly signed Senate Bill 786, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, the day before, on Thursday, July 16, 2009.This was like music to our ears, as naysayers who did not fully understand the nature of the bill had been publicly urging the governor to veto it.

 

Understanding the Specifics

What this Act does is clarify the responsibility of employers to accommodate the scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holy days, or for the wearing of religious apparel in the workplace unless it poses a “significant difficulty or expense” to their business(es).

It also defines “undue hardship” more coherently.

 

Visit the Northwest Religious Liberty Association online at http://www.nrla.com

Justice Department Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Essex County, New Jersey (DOJ Release)

Justice Department Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Essex County, New Jersey
County Refused to Accommodate Muslim Employee’s Religious Headcovering

The Department filed a lawsuit today against Essex County, N.J., alleging that it discriminated against a Muslim corrections officer on the basis of her religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit alleges that the county refused to permit Yvette Beshier to wear a religiously mandated headscarf while working as a corrections officer.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion. Its religious discrimination provisions require employers to make a reasonable accommodation of employees’ religious observances and practices. The Justice Department enforces Title VII’s prohibitions against employment discrimination with respect to state and local governments.

According to the complaint, the Essex County Department of Corrections (DOC), first suspended Beshier and then terminated her on the ground that her wearing of a khimar (a head scarf) violated its uniform policy for corrections officers. The complaint alleges that Beshier had requested a religious accommodation that would permit her to wear her khimar, but the DOC denied her request.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court in Newark seeks a court order requiring Essex County to adopt a policy that reasonably accommodates the religious observances and practices of employees and prospective employees subject to the Essex County DOC’s uniform policy for corrections officers. The suit also seeks monetary damages and other relief for Beshier.

“Employees should not have to choose between their religious beliefs and their economic livelihood,” said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Federal law requires all employers, even those having policies regarding the wearing of uniforms, to reasonably accommodate the religious observances and practices of their employees.”

The filing of this lawsuit reflects the Civil Rights Division’s ongoing commitment to actively enforce Title VII’s prohibitions against religious discrimination. In February, the Division obtained court approval of a settlement agreement with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority requiring the authority to adopt a religious accommodation policy to its uniform requirements for bus drivers, and providing relief to a prospective Apostolic Pentecostal employee and two Muslim employees who required religious accommodations. The Division also has a pending suit against the New York City Transit Authority alleging it has discriminated against Muslims, Sikhs and other employees through its uniform policy.

Please visit http://www.usdoj.gov/crt for additional information about the Civil Rights Division and its law enforcement activities.

###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 8, 2009
WWW.USDOJ.GOVCRT
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signs the Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Breaking News:  We have received word that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has signed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786).

SB 786 requires employers to make credible attempts to accommodate religious holy day observance and religious dress. Prior to SB 786, employers in Oregon could make only the bare minimum effort to meet accommodation requirements. This bill will be a step forward in clarifying the responsibility of employers to their religious employees.

The bill had been under fire this week from some religious organizations who promoted the idea that WRFA was designed to prohibit teachers from wearing religious dress. In reality the bill had left an 80+ year prohibition on religious dress by teachers in the public schools in place after a 2007 version of WRFA had failed because it had eliminated the requirement.

House Speaker Dave Hunt who championed WRFA has pledged to work to remove the educational restriction next term, and RLTV will be very supportive of those efforts. Currently Oregon and Pennsylvania are the only states that have prohibitions on any religious dress by teachers.

The Federal WRFA bills, brought over the course of more than a decade would provide a much broader range of religious practices than simply dress or religious garb, however the ACLU and other groups have expressed concerns that overly broad requirements provide no real guidance to employers and could potentially create hostile work environments. Although this was not necessarily a realistic assessment of the effects of WRFA, the federal bill which gained bipartisan support from key legislators such as Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, and Elizabeth Dole still faced stiff opposition.

While the Oregon bill may not be all inclusive, it will provide religious employees who face the most common problems of holy days and garb an opportunity to keep their jobs and their faith. Other issues will be addressed through existing channels under the pre-SB 786 standard and may provide opportunity for clean-up legislation later.

For more information on the bill, visit http://www.religiousliberty.tv/tag/sb-786

Oregon House of Representatives passes Workplace Religious Freedom Act

BY VOTE OF 38-21 OREGON’S WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT PASSES IN OREGON’S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!

Mark it down on your calendar, because this bill effort was a “historic,” if not a heroic, testament of God’s divine providence and power working through human instruments!

May 29, 2009 will long live in the memory of the leadership and support team of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) as Oregon Representative Dave Hunt (D-Gladstone District), the Speaker of Oregon’s House of Representatives, took apart each of the specific arguments of three of his colleagues in his closing remarks during the vigorous debate on the House floor. Opponents argued that current federal law was sufficient, and that the “minimal cost” and administrative “inconvenience” standards to define an “undue” business “hardship” were appropriate for employers to use when denying religious accommodation requests in the workplace.

 However, the 65 and 63 percent that voted in favor of the bill in Oregon’s House and Senate chambers respectively, agreed with Speaker Hunt that current law provides employers with little basis for defending the decision to accommodate or to deny accommodation. As a result, they exclaimed that employers often wave the claim of “undue hardship” like a magic wand without having to 1) define, explain, or demonstrate what that “undue hardship” is to the employee, or 2) how it really adversely affects their business in administrative terms, or in dollars and cents. Speaker Hunt, the chief sponsor of SB 786-A, further argued that some employers today continue to regularly define “undue hardship” as anything that causes a business “inconvenience,” and use it as a false legal pretext to refuse, as a matter of policy, to accommodate religious requests.

 Speaker Hunt reminded his colleagues that a few unfortunate Supreme Court decisions, beginning with TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), reduced the definition of “undue hardship” to a “de minimis” or “inconvenience” standard in favor of the employer. As a result, it significantly placed people of faith at a disadvantage in the workplace and created unnecessary unemployment hardships for them. That is why “undue hardship,” he argued, must be defined more coherently as a “significant difficulty” and “expense” and that such language, in turn, would also help relieve employers of so many discrimination claims against them.

 What This Bill Does

What this bill does is clarify the responsibility of employers to accommodate the scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holy days, or for the wearing of religious apparel in the workplace unless it poses a “significant difficulty or expense” to their business(es). More specifically, it restores the original federal Title VII legal standard involving religious discrimination which obligated employers to demonstrate that they reasonably attempted to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of their employees before claiming that such beliefs and practices posed a “significant difficulty” and “expense” for their business(es). This bill, once law, will help thousands of people of faith in the workplace who many times are forced to choose between their faith and putting food on the table for their family.

The Next Step

Oregon’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act now goes to the Governor’s desk for his signature. The Northwest Religious Liberty Association, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, and the Oregon Jewish Federation of America, have been invited to join House Speaker Dave Hunt and Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian to join him at the signing photo-op with the Governor. This historic event should occur sometime between the middle and end of June.

According to Geoff Sugerman, the Communications Director of Speaker Hunt’s office, “I don’t anticipate that Governor Ted Kulongoski (D) would veto a bill that caters to enhancing and protecting workers’ rights while balancing the rights of employers under Title VII involving religious accommodation and discrimination claims.” Speaker Hunt’s office is fairly certain that Governor Kulongoski will sign the bill into law. But we must not take this last important step for granted. Therefore, please continue to keep this historic legislative Act in your prayers, and specifically pray that the Governor will decide to sign it without reservation.

Divine Providence and An Organizational Note

A few professional observations may be worthwhile.

It has been a tremendous blessing to be a first hand witness to Representative Dave Hunt’s commitment to religious freedom, and particularly in championing religious freedom in the workplace. Speaker Hunt, whose meteoric rise to power and influence as a practicing Baptist in a notoriously liberal state, demonstrated to all discerning observers that he had truly been “called for such a time as this” (see the Scriptural allusion to Esther 4:14).

Indeed, the passage of this bill in both the Oregon Senate (April 9) and House represents nearly eleven years of painstaking lobbying efforts; first with attempts to pass an Oregon Religious Freedom Act affecting the area of constitutional law involving free exercise of religion at the state level (1999-2005), and second with Oregon’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act addressing federal Title VII workplace discrimination law standards and applications at the state level (2007-2009). We failed in the first effort, but succeeded in the second. In a diplomatic sense, battle worn and weary, with anxiety attacks and knots in our stomachs, is one way to describe our experience on Friday, May 29. Sweet resignation and satisfaction, like after successfully climbing to the top of a huge mountain peak, is another that comes to mind.

A number of lessons were learned along the way involving a lot of awkward moments as well as planned, spontaneous and satisfyingly hard earned successes. Learning to be adaptable to political realities and various language compromises, while keeping the overall intent and effectiveness of the bill intact, were the key lessons learned throughout this experience.

On an organizational note, having worked closely with Representative Hunt since 2003 when he was a freshman in the Oregon House of Representatives, and with a bipartisan group of influential Senators since 1999 who directed us to him – including Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Medford District), an aspiring candidate for Governor in 2010 – speaks to what it takes to get a historic bill like this passed.

Building positive working relationships with legislators through an immense amount of meaningful “face time” is the most significant factor. Other terms to describe successful lobbying practices is “on the ground presence” and “real player,” which represents the enormous amount of time, sacrifice, and labor that it takes. In this sense, the entire government relations team of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) has been “called for such a time as this” in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. While we always have improvements to make, our team of Capitol Pastors, attorneys, and administrative advisors, do excellent work and serves as a mighty testament as to why more excellent government relations programs like ours need to be developed in a truly serious and professional way in every state.

A special “thank you” to the entire team who helped us with our efforts is in order. They include 1) Attorney Michael Peabody, who testified with yours truly in a convincing and eloquent manner at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing; 2) Attorney Steve Green, Law Professor at Willamette College of Law, who was simply brilliant; 3) Oregon Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, a powerful advocate in our corner, along with Speaker of the House, Dave Hunt, who testified together with me at the same table at the House Judiciary Committee hearing; 4) David Miller, a faithful Seventh-day Adventist truck driver who testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing; 5) Shani Balverio, a faithful Seventh-day Adventist food service specialist, who also testified at the same hearing; 6) Douglas Clayville, our Capitol Pastor or Representative, who made numerous and much appreciated scheduled “team visits” to legislators with me; and 7) Rhonda Bolton, NRLA’s much appreciated Administrative Assistant, whose coordination and editing services were invaluable when it came to issues of timeliness, coherence, and professional copy appearance of all lobbying materials and official documents.

The Future

With the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act now in place, over the next couple of legislative sessions the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) plans to initiate similar legislative bill proposals in each of the other Northwest states. If the United States Congress enacts federal legislation mirroring Oregon’s example, then such a state-by-state effort may be unnecessary.

What the Oregon bill accomplishes is a narrowly tailored model for the federal government to follow in its efforts to see similar protections put forward for people of faith, including religious minorities. If adopted at the federal level, it would promise to help all people of faith and employers in each state of the country.

Last year, when I was in Washington, D.C., making scheduled visits with lawmakers, it was indicated to me by the chief legislative advisor in US Senator Orin Hatch’s (R-Utah) office that both he and Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) were watching closely (and debating over) the legislative effort in Oregon as a model to follow. This is because the Oregon model narrowly addresses religious accommodations involving 1) holy days and 2) the wearing of hazard-free religious apparel or clothing, and not the big “kitchen sink” approach that has often included other specific religious exemptions treating accommodation requests with distinctively moral concerns in the workplace (i.e., the dispensing of the Plan-B pill by Pharmacists and other health care concerns). Political realities, as such, however, caused the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) to take a different path, believing that such moral concerns, while important, should be raised in separate bill proposals so as not to year-after-year continually disable, defer, and defeat the narrow but equally worthy need to satisfy the larger purpose of Workplace Religious Freedom Act efforts, both at the state and federal levels, which is to specifically address holy day accommodation requests in the workplace which drives the vast majority of religious discrimination claims.

Some will argue to the contrary, but Oregon’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act is not an unconstitutional “affirmative action” bill for religious minorities and thus a governmental establishment of religion, even though religious minorities are incidentally benefited. [See Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (472 U.S. 703) 1985.] The clear intent of the bill is that it will be equally representative of accommodation requests that emanate from all people of faith in two specific areas – holy day and religious apparel accommodation requests. While it may exclude other religious or morally related accommodation requests, particularly in health care related areas, it does not exclude anyone of faith in regard to holy day and religious apparel accommodation requests. While it may incidentally benefit religious minorities in the workplace, the language of the bill is inclusive and directly benefits all people of faith, as well as employers in terms of lowering the number of litigation claims against them, as has been demonstrated in New York since 2006.

Once the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act becomes law, it is bound to face some tough legal challenges in the courts, state and possibly federal. But that is to be expected. Our efforts in providing a more coherent standard for religious accommodation requests on the one hand, and “undue business” standards for employers on the other, was a proactive one and an intelligent step forward.

Thank You!

In conclusion, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR UPLIFTING PRAYERS AND SUPPORT! We could not have done it without you and without God’s guiding hand! Thanks again!

The Northwest Religious Liberty Association, organized in 1906, and reorganized in 1991, serves the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington through its team of government relations representatives and attorneys. The Northwest Religious Liberty Association partners with the North American and International Religious Liberty Associations to defend religious freedom here and abroad.  Visit the Northwest Religious Liberty Association online at http://www.nrla.com

 

Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

SALEM, OREGON -  On April 9, 2009, the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786).  House Speaker Dave Hunt, Bureau of Labor and Industry director Brad Avakian, and Senator David Nelson led the testimony in favor of the bill followed by Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton, attorney Michael D. Peabody, and two employees who would benefit from SB 786, David Miller and Shani Balverio.  Willamette College of Law professor Steven Green, former general counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also testified on behalf of SB 786.

SB 786 would clarify the definition of the term “undue hardship” and provide a series of factors that employers can apply in determining whether or not they can honor an employee’s request for religious accommodation in the areas of holy day observance and religious dress requirements. 

This is an effort that has been spearheaded for the past few years by the Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton.

 

 

ONLINE RESOURCES:

1.  Testimony of Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton in support of SB 786

2.  Testimony of Attorney Michael D. Peabody in support of SB 786

3.  Talking Points on SB 786

4.  Full Text of SB 786

Next Page »