mastodon.lawprofs.org is part of the decentralized social network powered by Mastodon.
A Mastodon Instance for Legal Academics. Please provide your institutional affiliation when registering.

Administered by:

Server stats:

55
active users

Learn more

Nonilex<p>The <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/Biden" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Biden</span></a> admin rule makes numerous changes to regulations combating <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/sex" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>sex</span></a> <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/discrimination" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>discrimination</span></a> under <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/TitleIX" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TitleIX</span></a> of the <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/Education" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Education</span></a> Amendments of 1972, including by covering <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/LGBT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>LGBT</span></a> individuals as well as strengthening <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/protections" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>protections</span></a> for <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/pregnant" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>pregnant</span></a> students, parents &amp; guardians.</p><p>The admin said protecting LGBT <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/students" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>students</span></a> under Title IX is a "straightforward application" of <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a>’ landmark 2020 ruling that a similar <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>law</span></a>, <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TitleVII</span></a>, barring <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/workplace" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>workplace</span></a> discrimination protects <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/gay" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>gay</span></a> &amp; <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/transgender" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>transgender</span></a> employees.</p>
Lukas VFN 🇪🇺<p><a href="https://scholar.social/tags/Biden" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Biden</span></a> administration releases new <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> rules protecting <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/transgender" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>transgender</span></a> employees<br><a href="https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/04/biden-administration-releases-new-title-vii-rules-protecting-trans-employees/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">lgbtqnation.com/2024/04/biden-</span><span class="invisible">administration-releases-new-title-vii-rules-protecting-trans-employees/</span></a> <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/USpol" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>USpol</span></a> </p><p>"The agency's new federal workplace guidelines expressly prohibit <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/misgendering" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>misgendering</span></a>, denial of bathroom access... The new guidelines — which also forbid <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/harassment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>harassment</span></a> against people who are <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/pregnant" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>pregnant</span></a>, have just birthed children, are breast/chestfeeding, or have had an <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/abortion" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>abortion</span></a> — go into effect immediately."</p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Accommodation to Christian from Vaccine Mandate <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2023/09/eeoc-sues-over-refusal-of-religious.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="ellipsis">religionclause.blogspot.com/20</span><span class="invisible">23/09/eeoc-sues-over-refusal-of-religious.html</span></a></p><p>This seems like an odd use of the EEOC&#39;s limited resources. </p><p>The Supreme Court&#39;s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which made it easier to seek religious accommodations at work under Title VII, invited lawsuits like this one. </p><p>I just didn&#39;t expect the EEOC to join in.</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/lawfedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>lawfedi</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/fediLaw" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>fediLaw</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/religion" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>religion</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/vaccines" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>vaccines</span></a></p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>There was also debate in <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/Groff" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Groff</span></a> about whether the calculus consider the effects on employees</p><p>The Court has held that &quot;Impacts on coworkers are relevant only to the extent those impacts go on to affect the conduct of the business.&quot;</p><p>The Supreme Court in Groff also makes clear that hostility to a particular religion or religious accommodations is not the type of coworker impact that should be taken into consideration.</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SupremeCourt" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SupremeCourt</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/religion" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>religion</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/Law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/lawFedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>lawFedi</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/Fedilaw" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Fedilaw</span></a></p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>Title VII requires that employers provide religious accomodations to their employees unless it imposes an &quot;undue hardship&quot;</p><p>Previously, that was interpreted leniently as anything more than a de minimus cost</p><p>test is more now rigorous, so more protection for religious employees</p><p>[The Supreme Court adopted neither side&#39;s standard. </p><p>One wanted to keep it the same &amp; the other wanted to incorporate the ADA undue hardship standard. ]</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/religion" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>religion</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/Groff" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Groff</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SupremeCourt" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SupremeCourt</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/LawFedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>LawFedi</span></a></p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>The second <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a> opinion today is Groff v. DeJoy </p><p>It is unanimous</p><p>New standard: Title VII required unless &quot;accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business&quot;</p><p>Link: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pd</span><span class="invisible">f/22-174_k536.pdf</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SupremeCourt" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SupremeCourt</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/LawFedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>LawFedi</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/LawProf" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>LawProf</span></a></p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>In Groff v. DeJoy, an postal worker wanted Sundays off to observe his Sabbath, which forced coworkers to cover for him. <br />His employer refused</p><p>Title VII requires that employers accommodate the religious needs of their employees unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship</p><p>The <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SupremeCourt" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SupremeCourt</span></a> has in the past interpreted this standard leniently: “An ‘undue hardship’ is one that results in more than a de minimis cost to the employer.”</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/lawFedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>lawFedi</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/LawProf" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>LawProf</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/Fedilaw" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Fedilaw</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a></p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>Why wasn&#39;t SCOTUS all onboard given its record of privileging religion regardless of cost? </p><p>Maybe<br />One, it was a clash between two of its favorite things, religion and business</p><p>Two, Kavanaugh observed there were religious interests on both sides, the Sabbath observer employee who felt compelled to go to church on Sunday and his coworkers who would cover him who might have wanted to go to church on Sunday. </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SupremeCourt" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SupremeCourt</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/Groff" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Groff</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/FediLaw" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>FediLaw</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/Law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/LawFedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>LawFedi</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/LawProf" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>LawProf</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/employment" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>employment</span></a></p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>Cert. Granted To Review Title VII &quot;Undue Hardship&quot; Test For Religious Accommodation <a href="https://buff.ly/3ZCIfdj" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">buff.ly/3ZCIfdj</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p>&quot; In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that accommodating a Sunday sabbath observer by allowing him not to report for work on Sunday would cause an &#39;undue hardship&#39;to the U.S. Postal Service. &quot;</p><p>I always worry when the Supreme Court decides to hear a religion case</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/ChristianNationalism" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>ChristianNationalism</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SCOTUS" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SCOTUS</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/SupremeCourt" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>SupremeCourt</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/lawfedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>lawfedi</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/lawprof" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>lawprof</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/religion" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>religion</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/undueburden" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>undueburden</span></a></p>
Caroline Mala Corbin<p>Christian School Teacher Fired for urging the school&#39;s principal to show acceptance and understanding of LGBT Students Files Suit <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2022/12/christian-school-teacher-fired-for.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="ellipsis">religionclause.blogspot.com/20</span><span class="invisible">22/12/christian-school-teacher-fired-for.html</span></a></p><p>Not all religious claims are brought by conservatives. </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/religion" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>religion</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/religiousliberty" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>religiousliberty</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleVII" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleVII</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/TitleIX" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>TitleIX</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/lawfedi" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>lawfedi</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/LGBTQ" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>LGBTQ</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/law" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>law</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.lawprofs.org/tags/lawprof" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>lawprof</span></a></p>