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

 

BREAKING NEWS – Russia Moves to Liquidate Fifty-Six Religious Groups

On October 15 the Russian Ministry of Justice took steps to begin liquidating 56 non-Russian Orthodox religious organizations.  The groups face dissolution, Russian news sources reported, because they failed to file required annual reports on their activities. Those targeted include a range of non-Russian Orthodox organizations and churches but hardest hit were various Christian groups, both Protestant and Catholic.  Baptist groups were prominent on the list, but Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist and Pentecostal groups were also included. Well known humanitarian groups such as World Vision and Youth with a Mission were also named, as was the Russian branch of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.   Non-Christian organizations were also named, including Muslim and Buddhist associations.

According to the Slavic Legal Center in Moscow, many of the organizations believe they are in full compliance with filing requirements and are surprised to be included in the list.  They are unsure if the posting is a scare tactic or if the Ministry of Justice indeed intends to pursue liquidations on a massive scale. Anatoly Pchelintsev, an attorney for the Slavic Center for Law and Justice, remarked that “such actions fly in the face of official Russian state policy on the freedom of worship and creed.” Pchelintsev believes the responsible officials are unaware of the complicated international ramifications of their actions and cites the possibility of “chaos and destabilization in church-state relations.”  He added that in the case of most of the affected organizations, the threatened punishment goes too far.  “In Russia there already are more than a dozen cases in which courts rendered decisions in favor of religious organizations since the punishment for their failure to submit information did not formally fit the crime committed.”  Moreover, he added, “liquidation for failure to submit information is equivalent to sentencing a jaywalker to the death penalty. After all, liquidation means that the organization’s life is put to an end.”  In addition, said Pchelintsev, “such actions are inconsistent with the policy of the Russian government, which guarantees freedom of conscience and religious confessions for each person. The widespread liquidation of religious associations for petty violations will lead to the crudest infringement of human rights in our country and to the self-isolation of the government.”

Pastor Vitaly Vlasenko, Director for External Church Relations of the Russian Union of Christians-Baptists, had a less dramatic reaction.  He warned against undue alarm, suggesting that the action by the Ministry of Justice is a mere “wake-up call.”  He reported that thousands of religious organizations were registered during the 1990s, and that because a number of them are now defunct, the Ministry is probably only attempting to clear out organizations that no longer function.  In some cases, he noted, registered and actual activities no longer match. For example, he said, in one instance, “a Baptist organization registered in Moscow is active only in Siberia.”

However, according to Joseph K. Grieboski, president of Washington DC’s Institute for Religion and Democracy, “the move to liquidate several organizations can be seen only as a move to limit and control their activity further.   Despite recent European Court of Human Rights cases against such activities and registration standards, the Russian Government continues its ongoing tightening of religious activity and continues to threaten free exercise of faith in Russia.”

It is too early to know precisely why the Ministry is threatening dissolution of so many religious groups.  Russians are accustomed to a degree of arbitrariness and intimidation as pertains to non-Orthodox religions, but are such threats really necessary?  Could not the organizations have been contacted separately and asked to supply needed information for compliance rather than discovering from outside sources that they suffer possible dissolution?    According to Pchelintsev, a majority of the organizations named in the list are seriously frightened, if not already in panic mode.

The Ministry of Justice’s action only bolsters the claim by many within Russia that the government is not serious about religious freedom but consistently works in tandem with the Russian Orthodox Church to pester, persecute and eliminate if possible other religions.  By most estimates, more than eighty percent of Russians today identify themselves as Orthodox. There is a saying in Russia: “To be Russian is to be Orthodox.”  Nevertheless, the restructuring of Russia that began in the late 1980’s was supposed to be about creating a democracy where freedom was ensured for all citizens, and all religions were to have equal standing before the law. 

But the Russian Orthodox Church was always a vocal critic of this new policy of religious freedom, and prevailed upon the Duma to pass a highly restrictive new law in 1997 that slowed Russia’s experiment with unlimited religious freedom.  This law, which comprehensively regulates church-state relations in Russia, specially acknowledges the unique contributions to Russia’s culture and statehood of several of the nation’s oldest religions––Russian Orthodoxy in particular–but it also discriminates against the Federation’s less traditional religions by requiring special registration procedures and by limiting the scope of the activities in which they can lawfully engage. 

Many religious organizations have already been liquidated under this law; frequently it has been used as a tool for officials throughout Russia to remove unwanted religious groups.  In the spirit of this sanctioned discrimination, it remains difficult for many religious organizations to buy or even rent property to be used for worship purposes, meet for worship services, conduct schools, disseminate religious literature, or proselytize.  “The Russian Orthodox Church is already halfway towards becoming a state church,” the business daily Kommersant wrote recently.  Another kind of disquiet was expressed by Anatoly Krasikov, an expert in socio-religious studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, who warned, “if Orthodoxy becomes a new ideology, we’ll be right back to a totalitarian state.”  

 ”if Orthodoxy becomes a new ideology, we’ll be right back to a totalitarian state.”  

The Ministry of Justice’s action against 56 religious organizations might be a genuine but harmless attempt to bring the organizations into compliance with law.   But many inside Russia doubt whether there is not something more troublesome at play here.   It might well be Russia’s latest attempt to elevate Russian Orthodoxy to a position made prominent by reducing and eliminating the competition.  Russia must confront the task of how best to treat religion and religious institutions within an emerging democratic order.   Given Russia’s history, the Russian Orthodox Church might expect to have a dominant cultural role long into the future, but it is the Russian people, in democratic course, who must ultimately deny the church a preferred legal position. Their decision is key to the advance, or decline, of freedom in the new Russia.

 

 

Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D. is Dean of the College of Humanities and Dean of the Graduate School as well as director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the University of Mary Hardin-Baker in Belton, Texas.

The mission of The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Center for Religious Liberty is to advance religious liberty for all persons, in all parts of the world, without regard to their religious, ethnic, gender, racial or national background. Religious liberty is a basic human right that must be nourished and protected by all human societies; it is the cornerstone of modern societies’ efforts to build a more peaceful world. The Center advances this mission by publishing relevant literature, hosting and sponsoring lectureships and conferences, sharing its expertise with media and other public information outlets, and partnering with other persons and groups who share the goal of advancing religious liberty.  The web site for the Center can be found at www.umhb.edu/academics/crl

Photography by Ryan J. Bell.

INDIA – 27 Seventh-day Adventists Die in Religious Violence

On September 19, 2008, we were alerted by a reader in India to a story about the violence between Christians and Hindus in India. Click here to read the story.

India: Aftermath of violence leaves scars on Orissa

Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders in India have reported at least 27 Adventists dead from anti-Christian brutality that developed in the eastern India region of Orissa in late August. Church leaders said there are still violent outbreaks in the area despite India’s Central Reserve Police forces patrolling the state.

Choudampalli John, president of the Adventist Church in east India, reported that he was not allowed to enter the areas where extremist violence occurred. John also said some Adventists are still hiding in the jungles because they fear retribution from other refugees at government-run aid camps.

Other church leaders commented on the severity of the situation.

Paka Jesurathnam, Adventist church leader for Orissa, reported thousands of houses and three dozen Adventist churches were likely destroyed and looted.

“To evaluate the actual loss of lives, property, people … dwelling places and worship centers is impossible right now,” said Jesurathnam. “To hear … personal stories [makes] our nerves ache and blood dry.”

“To hear … personal stories [makes] our nerves ache and blood dry.”

The Prime Minister of India has condemned the violence, calling it a “national disgrace,” according to published reports.

Possibly as many as 50,000 Christians from the Kandhamal region of Orissa are scattered throughout the seven government-run refugee camps and the surrounding jungle, Ecumenical News International reported.

Hindu extremists are blamed for beheading an Adventist pastor in August. Samuel Naik, pastor of the Phulwani Adventist Church, and his mother were killed during anti-Christian violence sweeping the region of India. Church leaders reported that Naik’s wife, who was previously reported to have committed suicide, is still alive.

The outbreak came after unidentified attackers killed a Hindu religious leader and four other individuals. Hindus are blaming Christians for the deaths, while the Indian government cited Maoist rebels.

Source: Adventist News Network – http://news.adventist.org/data/2008/1222720930/index.html.en

U.S. State Department Releases 2008 Report on International Religious Liberty

The US State Department (United States Council on International Religious Freedom – USCIRF) released the 10th Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. In his remarks at a press conference, Ambassador John V. Hanford III expressed concern about persecution in North Korea, Eritrea, India, China, Myanmar, and several Muslim nations while applauding recent Muslim initiatives on behalf of inter-religious dialogue.

For more information:

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• 2008 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom (US Department of State)
• Remarks: Secretary Condoleezza Rice (US Department of State)
• Remarks: John V. Hanford III, Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom (US Department of State)