What Are the Limitations to Workplace Religious Expression?
Keeping in mind the material differences among private employment, government employment, and independent contractor status, the Supreme Court issued two other decisions last term whose logic creates concerns regarding religious expression in the private sector workplace.
The workplace and Thanksgiving dinner have one thing in common: politics and religion should be discussed at neither of them. Indeed, the policies of most sophisticated employers preclude discussion of those topics at work. The rationale is that those topics often lead to heated arguments, or claims of discrimination or harassment, so they are declared off-limits at work.
If an employee needs time to engage in private prayer, that is generally viewed as a reasonable accommodation. But if a supervisor asks to provide inspirational religious homilies to her staff or organize a lunchtime or after-work prayer session on the worksite, management will generally refuse for fear that employees might feel (or claim to feel) coerced or pressured into attendance or that practitioners of other faiths might feel discriminated against.
In the very different public employment context, the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton was confronted with a constitutional “free exercise of religion” claim by a high school football coach whose practice was to kneel in prayer on the 50-yard line after football games, often with students surrounding him, despite the school board’s direction that he not do so. He challenged the school board’s decision not to rehire him, claiming state interference with his religious expression; by a 6–3 majority, the Supreme Court agreed.
The majority and the dissent disagreed sharply on the facts; moreover, while the majority quoted the coach’s statements that he did not force anyone to attend, the dissent made the practical point that when a coach (or a supervisor) has a meeting, there is implied coercion to attend. One underpinning of the holding was that fear of legal liability is insufficient reason to suppress religious expression, at least in public employment. Why shouldn’t the same rationale apply to a private employer who prevents public religious expression in order to guard against a claim of creating a hostile work environment?
Last term, the Court went one step further in the independent contractor context in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which web designer Lorie Smith violated Colorado law by refusing to create wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her First Amendment right to free speech. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion noted that Smith’s creative and artistic website designs are limited by her conviction that “She will not produce content that ‘contradicts biblical truth’ regardless of who orders it.”
Again, in the context of governmental action, the Supreme Court noted that a state could not require “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal.” To the contrary, up to now, private employers can direct their employees to perform their essential job functions even if contrary to their political or religious views. An assertively atheist print shop employee cannot refuse to create and copy heavily religious brochures for a local church, nor can politically conservative employees refuse to do the same for the American Civil Liberties Union. An employee with sincerely held religious political beliefs that women should not work, let alone manage or supervise, must suppress any practice or expression of that belief or be terminated. In each of these examples, a private employer has always had the right to demand compliance and service whether or not it interferes with the employee’s right to free speech or religious expression.
Have religious expression rights expanded so greatly that they are legally superior to management discretion? Concerns have been expressed that a more conservative, and more religious, Supreme Court is moving in that direction. Are protections intended to protect religious minorities being used to establish religious hegemony instead? Has religious freedom become a political issue of the right?
Considering that question, it is worth noting liberal champion Justice Thurgood Marshall’s impassioned dissent to Hardison v. TWA, joined by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Bemoaning the dilution of religious accommodation, the dissent writes, “As a question of social policy, this result is deeply troubling, for a society that truly values religious pluralism cannot compel adherents of minority religions to make the cruel choice of surrendering their religion or their job. And, as a matter of law, today’s result is intolerable . . . .”
While it is a mantle alternatively worn by one political party or another, protection of religious pluralism, and freedom to engage in one’s own religious ceremony and expression, is a founding principle of our nation, animated by our freedoms of speech, thought, and assembly. Generally, those protections do not interfere with those of others and can be accommodated in the workplace. Employers continue to be well served by work policies that prevent religion from being a source of conflict or dissension at the workplace. We await any further guidance from the Supreme Court.