Federal Judge blocks IVF and abortion protections at Catholic employers nation-wide

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 22
  • Views: 396
  • Politics 
nycfan

nycfan

Curator/Moderator
ZZL Supporter
Messages
8,634


"A federal judge in North Dakota issued an injunction on Monday blocking the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from protecting any employees of any members of a nationwide Catholic association who are seeking time off or other accommodations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for an abortion or in vitro fertilization treatment.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor, a Trump appointee to the federal court in North Dakota, issued the religion-infused preliminary injunction to partially block enforcement of an EEOC rule implementing the 2022 law, along with related implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as to the Catholic Benefits Association and its members — current or future — nationwide.

The order covers more than 8,000 employers — including thousands of churches — across the country.

The PWFA was passed in December 2022 and is supposed to protect covered workers from discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” by, in part, requiring employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations. The EEOC proposed its implementing rule for the PWFA in August 2023, stating in part that abortion and fertility treatment, including IVF, are covered by the law’s protections. That rule, which does not relate to insurance coverage, went into effect in June. ..."
 
While I don't agree with the Catholic Church on their stances on these issues, I don't see this ruling as egregious. If you choose to work for the Catholic Church, I would imagine that you know you're going to have to roughly follow Catholic theology and practice. If you aren't willing to do so, then it seems as if working for a different employer would be the way to go. And given 1A protections for religious belief/practices, the Catholic Church has a fairly well-established right to follow their religious beliefs/practices in their employment practices.
 
SnoopRob said:
While I don't agree with the Catholic Church on their stances on these issues, I don't see this ruling as egregious. If you choose to work for the Catholic Church, I would imagine that you know you're going to have to roughly follow Catholic theology and practice. If you aren't willing to do so, then it seems as if working for a different employer would be the way to go. And given 1A protections for religious belief/practices, the Catholic Church has a fairly well-established right to follow their religious beliefs/practices in their employment practices.
Click to expand...
The possibility of working for another employer isn't something that is factored into a discrimination analysis. If an employer who wears a stars and bars bandana requires black workers to make monkey sounds when he walks past them, the fact that they could work elsewhere doesn't immunize the employer's actions.

There is not a well-established right to follow their religious beliefs in employment practices. There is a "ministerial" exception for churches, which the Supreme Court expanded into an exception for anyone performing "vital religious duties." It is not a free all-purpose license for churches to disobey the law. Well, it's not that just yet. We can revisit in five years.
 
SnoopRob said:
While I don't agree with the Catholic Church on their stances on these issues, I don't see this ruling as egregious. If you choose to work for the Catholic Church, I would imagine that you know you're going to have to roughly follow Catholic theology and practice. If you aren't willing to do so, then it seems as if working for a different employer would be the way to go. And given 1A protections for religious belief/practices, the Catholic Church has a fairly well-established right to follow their religious beliefs/practices in their employment practices.
Click to expand...
When did the church decide to be against in vitro? I thought they were for having children?

Chic Fil A is a highly religious business, but they cannot hire and fire based off of their religious beliefs. The Catholic church is a business and should be treated as such.
 
SnoopRob said:
While I don't agree with the Catholic Church on their stances on these issues, I don't see this ruling as egregious. If you choose to work for the Catholic Church, I would imagine that you know you're going to have to roughly follow Catholic theology and practice. If you aren't willing to do so, then it seems as if working for a different employer would be the way to go. And given 1A protections for religious belief/practices, the Catholic Church has a fairly well-established right to follow their religious beliefs/practices in their employment practices.
Click to expand...
I can see a church being exempt from certain rules, but if the church is running a business, even a non-profit, it should have to follow the rules. A Catholic adoption agency shouldn't be able to deny adoption to Jewish parents on the basis that they aren't Catholic or even Christian. I may differ from SCOTUS on this, but they will just have to live with the fact that I don't agree with them. My ruling also applies to the above mentioned matter.
 
superrific said:
The possibility of working for another employer isn't something that is factored into a discrimination analysis. If an employer who wears a stars and bars bandana requires black workers to make monkey sounds when he walks past them, the fact that they could work elsewhere doesn't immunize the employer's actions.

There is not a well-established right to follow their religious beliefs in employment practices. There is a "ministerial" exception for churches, which the Supreme Court expanded into an exception for anyone performing "vital religious duties." It is not a free all-purpose license for churches to disobey the law. Well, it's not that just yet. We can revisit in five years.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget that Catholic and other religious institutions have been buying up hospitals in recent years and have become huge employers (over one million employees work for religious hospitals in US).
 
nycfan said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that IVF is ‘morally unacceptable’ because it separates the marriage act from procreation and establishes ‘the domination of technology’ over human life.


The Pope also recently condemned surrogacy as deplorable.
Click to expand...
Seems hypocritical to tell people who are pregnant and want an abortion that they must have the child, while also telling those struggling to have children that they can't use science to have a child.
 
SnoopRob said:
While I don't agree with the Catholic Church on their stances on these issues, I don't see this ruling as egregious. If you choose to work for the Catholic Church, I would imagine that you know you're going to have to roughly follow Catholic theology and practice. If you aren't willing to do so, then it seems as if working for a different employer would be the way to go. And given 1A protections for religious belief/practices, the Catholic Church has a fairly well-established right to follow their religious beliefs/practices in their employment practices.
Click to expand...

So does that mean I should be able to not allow time off to my employees who are Carholic and want to attend a religious function since I think Catholicism is immoral?

It would seem by the same reasoning that I should be able to.

I wouldn't and I don't think I should be able to, but anyone who works for me likely knows my position on the Catholic Church and therefore should have the expectation of following roughly my beliefs about it? Is that what you're saying?
 
SnoopRob said:
While I don't agree with the Catholic Church on their stances on these issues, I don't see this ruling as egregious. If you choose to work for the Catholic Church, I would imagine that you know you're going to have to roughly follow Catholic theology and practice. If you aren't willing to do so, then it seems as if working for a different employer would be the way to go. And given 1A protections for religious belief/practices, the Catholic Church has a fairly well-established right to follow their religious beliefs/practices in their employment practices.
Click to expand...
That would be discriminatory, especially for non church staff that work at a business owned by the church that is subsidized by the government
 
Given that the all male priesthood of the Catholic Rule has such a long and well documented history of molesting little boys that it has become for all practical purposes part of the Catholic Church's dogma, would it follow that laws that prohibit such behavior not be applicable to the members of the Catholic priesthood?
 
Last edited:
05C40 said:
Given that the the all male priesthood of the Catholic Rule has such a long and well documented history of molesting little boys that it has become for all practical purposes part of the Catholic Church's dogma, would it follow that laws that prohibit such behavior not be applicable to the members of the Catholic priesthood?
Click to expand...
A sharp dagger but an entirely fair question
 
superrific said:
The possibility of working for another employer isn't something that is factored into a discrimination analysis. If an employer who wears a stars and bars bandana requires black workers to make monkey sounds when he walks past them, the fact that they could work elsewhere doesn't immunize the employer's actions.

There is not a well-established right to follow their religious beliefs in employment practices. There is a "ministerial" exception for churches, which the Supreme Court expanded into an exception for anyone performing "vital religious duties." It is not a free all-purpose license for churches to disobey the law. Well, it's not that just yet. We can revisit in five years.
Click to expand...
You're obviously correct that "just work for another employer" is not a valid defense for discrimination. I was more speaking from a common sense perspective that if you choose to work for the Catholic Church, you should probably expect there to be Church-specific expectations placed on their employment practices.

The Catholic Church takes a very broad perspective on what constitutes "vital religious duties" and they are going to fight very hard for that understanding to be what they are able to practice. I don't imagine that they'll get everything they want, but I wouldn't be surprised if they get most of it under the current SCOTUS. And, to be fair, as a church - not any other type of business where the owners may have strong religious beliefs - it would seem as if they are entitled to fairly strong protections for their religious beliefs/practices being included in their employment practices.
 
BillOfRights said:
I can see a church being exempt from certain rules, but if the church is running a business, even a non-profit, it should have to follow the rules. A Catholic adoption agency shouldn't be able to deny adoption to Jewish parents on the basis that they aren't Catholic or even Christian. I may differ from SCOTUS on this, but they will just have to live with the fact that I don't agree with them. My ruling also applies to the above mentioned matter.
Click to expand...
Typically, Catholic Church service providers aren't able to discriminate when it comes to service provision, meaning that Catholic Charities has to serve all folks who request help on an equal basis. That would include any of their services like adoption, food or rental assistance, etc. (The only place the Catholic Church typically can discriminate is when it comes to explicitly religious acts like offering the Eucharist or performing the sacrament of marriage.)

They have often been given more latitude when it comes to their employment practices because their employees represent the church. As super stated, there are limits to that latitude, but this SCOTUS has seemed more inclined to see their objections to being forced to provide employee benefits that violate their beliefs as a valid extension of religious practice and therefore covered under the 1A. And while I can see both sides of the argument, I think this is one area where the Catholic Church has a valid point. I'm sure others will disagree on this, but it seems fair to me that a church shouldn't have to participate in providing employee benefits in a way that violates the beliefs of the church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top