{"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}
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.
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.