8353 research outputs found
Sort by
Fruit of the Poisonous Utility Pole: Why Digital-Age Privacy Expectations Render Warrantless Pole Camera Surveillance Unconstitutional
No full text
Warner Chappel Music, Inc. v. Nealy and the Copyright Act\u27s Statute of Limitations
Full text linkThe U.S. Copyright Act’s statute of limitations is unremarkable. Nonetheless, disputes concerning the interpretation and application of this statute have sufficiently vexed the courts that it has been the subject of two Supreme Court decisions in the past decade. Most recently, Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy resolved a circuit split that lasted only a few years. Despite this resolution, and the seeming unanimity of the lower courts in adopting the discovery rule of accrual, closer examination reveals that the lower courts are applying the discovery rule in two very different ways, depending on the nature of the dispute between the parties. Moreover, a recent Second Circuit opinion is fundamentally inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the issue, and is likely to lead to further conflicts among the lower courts. As a result, one can predict that the Supreme Court will have to intervene again in the foreseeable future
Religious Accommodations in the Dobbs Era
Full text linkGiven the deep political divide in the U.S. and the emotional response to the abortion issue, workplaces may become hostile environments that harm workers based on their pro- or anti-abortion views or their out-of-work activism. Besides hostile environments, some workers may suffer workplace discipline based on their speech at work or refusals to engage in certain job requirements. Disciplining employees for engaging in workplace speech or refusal to perform parts of their jobs may violate workers’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers grant religious accommodations in the workplace if doing so does not create an undue hardship on the employer’s business.
Plaintiffs increasingly sue their former employers for failure to grant them religious accommodations. There are four main types of religious accommodation: permission to wear clothing that otherwise would violate dress/appearance codes, scheduling changes that permit the employee to respect their sabbath, freedom to express religious views on controversial topics such as abortion, and excuse from job responsibilities that are offensive to the employee’s religious views. The expression and job responsibilities cases, which are often brought by non-profit religious rights organizations, are part of a larger move for greater religious rights in the U.S.
The United States Supreme Court recently decided Groff v. DeJoy, a scheduling religious accommodation case that ostensibly has nothing to do with abortion, but that may have a major effect on cases brought by religious employees whose opposition to abortion and contraception has interfered with their ability to do and/or keep their jobs.
This article analyzes the four most common employee requests for accommodations and discusses the current law of religious accommodation as refined in Groff v. DeJoy. It suggests ways to analyze free expression cases to protect all employees and the business, and it concludes that where employees request permission to avoid certain job duties, courts should adopt principles from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If courts do not adopt these suggestions, Congress should amend Title VII by explicitly defining the terms “reasonable accommodations” and “undue hardship” and by clarifying whether an employer can prove “undue hardship” by demonstrating that the job duty the religious employee seeks to avoid is an “essential function” of the particular job
