Workplace Religious Beliefs

Explore the landmark Christian Employers Alliance v. EEOC case, where religious freedoms clashed with federal mandates on gender transition coverage. Discover key takeaways for business owners navigating religious beliefs and employment laws.

In Part 2 of a two-part series on navigating legal issues around gendered pronouns in the workplace, we address how employers can respect the rights of all employees and avoid liability.

In this post, we discuss a new standard for religious accommodations in the workplace that has implications for both employers and employees.

In Part 1 of a two-part series on navigating legal issues around gendered pronouns in the workplace, we discuss the legal rights of both transgender employees and religious employees.

Implications of a court ruling on a religious organization firing an employee because his same-sex marriage violated the organization’s religious beliefs.

Federal law prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace. What is religious discrimination and how can an employer avoid creating problems?

The latest Tenth Circuit case on religious accommodations in the workplace discusses the give and take of religious accommodations, and clarifies the level of effort employers need to make.

A downloadable resource by Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. and Jessica Ross, Esq. about "the tension and intersection between religious rights for employers and employees in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and its implications for anti-discrimination and religious freedom."

What if your religious beliefs as an employee are in conflict with the organization’s basic values? Does it have to accommodate you anyway? Maybe, according to a recent Pennsylvania case.

Recent Court Cases Go Both Ways. Five recent decisions on the HHS mandate involve Christian for-profit companies. Each of these companies objected to providing contraceptives and sterilization, abortifacients, or both on religious grounds, and filed a lawsuit to avoid having to do so. Three decisions granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs so they would not have to provide the contraceptive coverage during the case. Two decisions went against the companies, one dismissing its claim, and one denying the preliminary injunction.