同样的词语,不同的含义--同样的法院,不同的倾向:最高法院最新的宗教宽容裁定如何改变法律并影响雇主

IF 3.4 4区 管理学 Q1 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Tashlin Lakhani, David Sherwyn, Paul Wagner
{"title":"同样的词语,不同的含义--同样的法院,不同的倾向:最高法院最新的宗教宽容裁定如何改变法律并影响雇主","authors":"Tashlin Lakhani, David Sherwyn, Paul Wagner","doi":"10.1177/19389655231223369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court dropped several of its most anxiously awaited and controversial cases during the last week of June 2023. While two of the cases, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Students for Fair Admissions., Inc., v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, received most of the press, a third case will likely be the most consequential of the three for the hospitality industry. In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, rejected a 25 year+ interpretation of a Supreme Court case defining employers’ obligations to accommodate religion. Because the Court released its Groff decision during the same week as the release of both 303 Creative and the Harvard cases, Groff was lost in the shuffle. However, we argue that Groff’s imprecise but radical change of what constitutes an undue hardship for religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will create confusion, may cause dissention, and will add to an already difficult labor market in hospitality and other industries. To support our proposition, this article examines (a) the development of religious accommodation law before 1977, (b) the 1977 Supreme Court case that the Groff Court rejected, (c) the subsequent precedent of that 1977 case, (d) the passing and development of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and then, (e) the effect of Groff.","PeriodicalId":47888,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Same Words, Different Meanings—Same Courts, Different Leanings: How the Supreme Court’s Latest Religious Accommodation Holding Changes the Law and Affects Employers\",\"authors\":\"Tashlin Lakhani, David Sherwyn, Paul Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19389655231223369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court dropped several of its most anxiously awaited and controversial cases during the last week of June 2023. While two of the cases, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Students for Fair Admissions., Inc., v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, received most of the press, a third case will likely be the most consequential of the three for the hospitality industry. In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, rejected a 25 year+ interpretation of a Supreme Court case defining employers’ obligations to accommodate religion. Because the Court released its Groff decision during the same week as the release of both 303 Creative and the Harvard cases, Groff was lost in the shuffle. However, we argue that Groff’s imprecise but radical change of what constitutes an undue hardship for religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will create confusion, may cause dissention, and will add to an already difficult labor market in hospitality and other industries. To support our proposition, this article examines (a) the development of religious accommodation law before 1977, (b) the 1977 Supreme Court case that the Groff Court rejected, (c) the subsequent precedent of that 1977 case, (d) the passing and development of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and then, (e) the effect of Groff.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655231223369\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655231223369","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最高法院在 2023 年 6 月的最后一周审理了几起最令人焦虑和最具争议的案件。其中,303 Creative LLC v. Elenis 案和 Students for Fair Admissions.在 Groff 诉邮政局长 DeJoy 一案中,最高法院以 9 比 0 的比分驳回了 25 年多来最高法院对界定雇主容纳宗教信仰义务案件的解释。由于法院在 303 Creative 案和哈佛案公布的同一周公布了格罗夫案的判决,格罗夫案被忽略了。然而,我们认为,Groff 案对 1964 年《民权法案》第七章规定的宗教通融的过度困难的构成要件进行了不精确但却激进的修改,这将造成混乱,可能引起异议,并将使酒店业和其他行业本已困难重重的劳动力市场雪上加霜。为了支持我们的主张,本文研究了 (a) 1977 年之前宗教住宿法的发展,(b) 1977 年被格罗夫法院驳回的最高法院案例,(c) 1977 年该案例的后续判例,(d) 《美国残疾人法案》的通过和发展,然后,(e) 格罗夫的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Same Words, Different Meanings—Same Courts, Different Leanings: How the Supreme Court’s Latest Religious Accommodation Holding Changes the Law and Affects Employers
The Supreme Court dropped several of its most anxiously awaited and controversial cases during the last week of June 2023. While two of the cases, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and Students for Fair Admissions., Inc., v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, received most of the press, a third case will likely be the most consequential of the three for the hospitality industry. In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, rejected a 25 year+ interpretation of a Supreme Court case defining employers’ obligations to accommodate religion. Because the Court released its Groff decision during the same week as the release of both 303 Creative and the Harvard cases, Groff was lost in the shuffle. However, we argue that Groff’s imprecise but radical change of what constitutes an undue hardship for religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will create confusion, may cause dissention, and will add to an already difficult labor market in hospitality and other industries. To support our proposition, this article examines (a) the development of religious accommodation law before 1977, (b) the 1977 Supreme Court case that the Groff Court rejected, (c) the subsequent precedent of that 1977 case, (d) the passing and development of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and then, (e) the effect of Groff.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CQ) publishes research in all business disciplines that contribute to management practice in the hospitality and tourism industries. Like the hospitality industry itself, the editorial content of CQ is broad, including topics in strategic management, consumer behavior, marketing, financial management, real-estate, accounting, operations management, planning and design, human resources management, applied economics, information technology, international development, communications, travel and tourism, and more general management. The audience is academics, hospitality managers, developers, consultants, investors, and students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信