Please read the fact pattern below and answer the following questions:
Sam owns a resort that has over 100 employees. He hired Sandra, a Christian to serve as a housekeeper. Sandra informed him during the interview process that per her faith, she would need to have every Sunday off on the schedule as she goes to church on Sunday and believes that Sunday is the Sabbath and that she must keep it holy by not working and taking a rest. Sam, who espoused a policy of diversity, told her it wouldn't be an issue.
After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (2014), Sam decided to stop paying for any kind of birth control through the health insurance that he offered his employees due to financial loss associated with the COVID-19 crisis; the business went under and numerous employees left for higher paying jobs or left out of fear of catching the virus. While the resort offered free COVID-19 vaccinations, many stated that it was against their religion to take the vaccine and opted to look for other employment.
Sam then started thinking about other ways in which religion impacted his business. After talking with his wife, he decided to tell Sandra that she could no longer be off every Sunday, as it probably was disruptive to business and bothered the other employees (as they said they were Christians too, but still had to work on Sunday and even took the vaccine to maintain their job during the economic uncertainty). He issued Sandra a letter informing her that, under her religious freedom rights as a business owner, he would no longer allow her to be off every Sunday. The next day, he got a certified letter from Sandra's lawyer telling him that he was violating her rights and unless he allowed her to continue to continue to be off every Sunday, he would be subject to a lawsuit.
Part 1
How would the legal dilemma(s) posed in this scenario likely be resolved if no Constitution existed? Does what you imagine seem impartial and/or fair to all parties?
Part 2
Using the federal Constitution "as is", assume that:
- if your last name starts with A-M, you are a paralegal assigned to assisting Sandra's lawyer.
- if your last name starts with N-Z, you are a paralegal assigned to assisting Sam's lawyer.
Further assume that the lawyer for whom you work wants you to outline the basic arguments that should be made for the respective client (either Sandra or Sam). Upon what resource(s) did you rely in your proposed legal argument?
Note that the First Amendment protects against governmental actions, not those of private individuals. Also, what is the law that gives First Amendment rights to corporations? You will want to find that as well (it's mentioned in the Hobby Lobby case). Here's something to start your research on the rights of individuals in the workplace.
Part 3
Now you may make your personal commentary on these issues.
• Do you agree with corporations having First Amendment rights? Why or why not?
o Do you think that corporations should be able to impose the religious beliefs of the owners on the employees and not be subject to restrictions like Title VII?
• What if Sam was a Scientologist? What if Sam was a member of a religion created by his cousin? How do you know if a religious practice is protected?
• Does the US need a constitution or not? Why?
Part 1
If no Constitution existed, the resolution of the legal dilemmas posed in this scenario would likely depend on the prevailing social and cultural norms of the community in which Sam's resort is located. Without a Constitution to provide a framework for individual rights and protections, the decision would likely be left to Sam as the owner of the business.
In this case, Sam initially agreed to accommodate Sandra's religious beliefs by granting her Sundays off. However, after facing financial difficulties and witnessing other employees leaving due to various reasons, including religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine, Sam reconsidered his decision. He decided to inform Sandra that she could no longer have Sundays off, claiming that it was disruptive to the business and bothered other employees.
Without a Constitution, Sam would have broad discretion to make decisions regarding employee schedules and accommodations. There would be no legal framework to protect Sandra's right to religious freedom or to challenge Sam's decision on the basis of discrimination.
The resolution of this situation without a Constitution may not necessarily be impartial or fair to all parties involved. It could lead to unequal treatment of employees based on their religious beliefs and potentially create a hostile work environment. The absence of legal protections could also result in arbitrary decisions by employers, undermining the stability and fairness of the workplace.
Part 2
As a paralegal assisting Sandra's lawyer, the basic arguments that should be made on her behalf would likely focus on her rights under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
First Amendment: Sandra's lawyer could argue that by denying her request for Sundays off, Sam is infringing upon her right to freely exercise her religion. While the First Amendment protects against governmental actions, it also applies to private employers when they engage in state action or if there is a significant government involvement in their actions.
Title VII: Sandra's lawyer could argue that Sam's decision to change her schedule is a violation of Title VII, which prohibits religious discrimination in employment. By accommodating other employees' religious beliefs while denying Sandra's request, Sam may be engaging in religious discrimination.
In addition to these arguments, Sandra's lawyer could also rely on relevant case law and legal precedents that support the protection of religious rights in the workplace, such as the Supreme Court case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.
Part 3
Personal commentary:
Corporations having First Amendment rights: I believe that corporations should not have the same First Amendment rights as individuals. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the individual freedoms of citizens, not to extend those protections to artificial entities like corporations. Granting corporations expansive First Amendment rights could potentially allow them to wield undue influence over political and social issues, undermining the democratic process.
Imposing religious beliefs on employees: No, I do not think that corporations should be able to impose their owners' religious beliefs on employees without any restrictions. Title VII provides important protections against religious discrimination in the workplace, ensuring that employees are not subjected to unfair treatment based on their religious beliefs. Allowing corporations to override these protections would undermine the principles of equality and fairness.
Protected religious practices: Whether a religious practice is protected or not depends on various factors. In general, courts consider whether a belief is sincerely held and whether it is rooted in a recognized religion or has substantial moral or ethical dimensions. The courts will evaluate each case individually, considering factors such as the impact on others, the reasonableness of accommodation requests, and the nature of the employer's business.
Need for a constitution: Yes, the United States needs a constitution. A constitution provides a fundamental framework for protecting individual rights, establishing a system of government, and ensuring stability and order in society. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by those in power and provides a means for resolving conflicts and disputes in a fair and just manner. Without a constitution, there would be no clear guidelines or principles to guide and protect individuals' rights and freedoms.