Comment: Various commenters took challenge with the draft’s statement that it was an “open question” whether or not a for-revenue corporation can represent a “religious corporation” throughout the that means of section 702(a) of Title VII, forty two U.S.C. Instead, the final steerage observes that although courts have historically relied on for-revenue status to indicate that an entity will not be a “religious corporation” below § 702(a), the plain textual content of the statute doesn’t reference for-revenue and nonprofit standing, and that it is feasible courts may be extra receptive to discovering a for-profit corporation can qualify given language from the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby. Comment: Commenters offered a variety of perspectives on the Supreme Court’s 1977 holding that the Title VII undue hardship defense permits an employer to deny any religious accommodation that may impose greater than a de minimis burden on the operation of the employer’s enterprise. By distinction, others asked for larger clarity that religious organizations are shielded from such claims by the statutory permission to hire individuals “of a particular religion.” Additionally, some commenters discussed how the Commission ought to proceed if a respondent entity invokes the religious group exception.
Others mentioned the draft’s handling of procedural issues referring to adjudication of the ministerial exception when asserted as a defense. Comment: The National Federation of Independent Business really useful insertion of language guiding EEOC workers to confer with the EEOC Office of Legal Counsel, which can as needed consult with the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, when matters raise the interplay of the first Amendment or RFRA with statutes enforced by the EEOC. Response: The ultimate steering contains this sort of instruction to EEOC employees. Response: The ultimate guidance refines therapy of the cited authorities on this section, including explanations of the end result in instances through which RFRA was raised as a protection to EEO enforcement. Comment: Some commenters really useful that the Commission deal with whether or not or when worker statements on non-public social media might implicate the EEO legal guidelines with respect to discrimination, including harassment, either by or towards religious staff. Response: The ultimate guidance consists of additional language explicitly reiterating an employer’s rights and responsibilities underneath Title VII with respect to coworker complaints about unwelcome harassing conduct. Department of Health and Human Services concerning rights of those with objections to collaborating in certain health care duties could be misleading with respect to the requirements under either those legal guidelines or Title VII.
Comment: With respect to balancing harassment and accommodation obligations, numerous commenters requested the Commission to make clear that employers are permitted to, and will, take remedial motion as soon as on notice of unwelcome potential harassment on any basis, even when the harassing conduct will not be yet extreme or pervasive. In July 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was reintroduced to Congress, with revisions together with protections for interracial marriages. See, e.g., infra § 12-I-C-three (“Additional Interaction of Title VII with the primary Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)”). 2002) (same); see additionally, e.g., EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 29 C.F.R. 2017) (making use of identical check to Title VII declare of religious discrimination); Davis v. Fort Bend Cnty., 765 F.3d 480, 485 (fifth Cir. Comment: Various commenters addressed the Commission’s assertion in the draft that a denial of religious accommodation absent undue hardship is actionable even when there was not a further, impartial opposed employment motion taken towards the worker. Response: The ultimate steering contains a clear statement that the Commission is referencing these legal guidelines for informational purposes and is not opining on any of their necessities or whether or not they might require further burdens on employers past Title VII’s analysis for reasonable accommodation.
Response: The final steerage has streamlined the dialogue of the ministerial exception and has clarified how the Commission will procedurally handle assertions of the defense. Comment: Numerous commenters requested the Commission to make clear and further emphasize that consensual non-harassing conversations about religious topics aren’t potential harassment of coworkers. Comment: Numerous commenters requested the Commission to delete or modify references to RFRA as a possible defense to Title VII enforcement by the government. Comment: Many organizational and Congressional commenters requested for clarification or revision of the proposal’s interpretation of the scope of the statutory exemption allowing employment of people “of a specific religion” by religious firms below § 702(a) or religious educational establishments below § 703(e)(2). Some commenters requested the Commission to state that religious organizations are barred from discrimination primarily based on race, color, intercourse, nationwide origin, or other bases, even if motivated by a religious belief. Some commenters believed the Commission’s inclusion of a quotation to Justice Alito’s concurring opinion within the denial of certiorari in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 140 S. Ct. On 14 May 2013, Brazil’s National Justice Council (CNJ) dominated in favor of recognizing identical-intercourse marriage nationwide.