Upon Thornton’s informing his employer that he would no longer work his managerial job on Sunday’s he was transferred into a clerical position. The employer had rejected his offer to work in another non-supervisory role at a lower salary or to be transferred to a managerial position at a store that was closed on Sundays. Two days after being transferred, Thornton quit his job and filed a grievance. He based his challenge on a Connecticut law that stated that no employee could be forced to work on his Sabbath day.
The Court ruled 8-1 that Connecticut’s law was unconstitutional because it had a direct effect of advancing a particular religious practice.
| Majority Opinion: (Chief Justice Burger) |
The Connecticut law gives absolute supremacy to the religious observances of citizens over the secular interests of the workplace. There are no exemptions for people whose Sabbath’s fall on a weekday or for people whose Sabbath observances would cause their employers economic hardship. Finally, there is no examination allowed to determine whether the employer made a reasonable effort to accommodate the employee. “...the statute goes beyond having an incidental or remote effect of advancing religion. The statute has a primary effect that impermissibly advances a particular religious practice.”
This decision determined that laws that endorse a specific religious practice (in this case observing the Sabbath) are impermissible. It is not relevant that Connecticut allowed employees to obey different Sabbath days although it meant that they were not endorsing a particular religious faith.
Copyright © The Religious Freedom Page.
|
