Decatur Legal

Legal news and analysis, trusted referrals, legal fiction, sponsored by Radford Scott LLP

Utah Federal Judge Cites Hobby Lobby in Child Labor Case

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned in her written dissent that through its decision the Court had, “ventured into a minefield.”

As described in this article, U.S. District Judge David Sam cited Hobby Lobby is his decision to excuse an individual from testifying in a current child labor action.

Amid allegations that  the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a sect of the Mormon Church, forced children to miss school in order to harvest pecans for eight hour days without pay, the Department of Labor began an investigation into the charges.

Vergel Steed, a member of the church, was deposed in January and used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to help protect him from identifying church leaders who are thought to be parties to the alleged activity. The RFRA provides that individuals may be exempt from laws that go against their religious beliefs and/or practices.   Based on this and the recent Hobby Lobby decision, Judge Sam ruled that due to his religious beliefs, Steed is not obligated to respond to a Federal Subpoena that would require him to name individual church leaders.

In his decision, Judge Sam citing Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, “It is not for the Court to ‘inquire into the theological merit of the belief in question.’ The Court’s ‘only task is to determine whether the claimant’s belief is sincere, and if so, whether the government has applied substantial pressure on the claimant to violate that belief.”

Dean of UC-Irvine School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, calls Sam’s decision “stunning,” stating, “I think it is quite predictable that the court’s decision in Hobby Lobby would open the door to such claims of an exemption from laws for religious reasons.    I fear it is just the start of cases of people claiming religious exemptions from general laws.”

If you or someone you know believe they have experienced unlawful employment practices, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

 

Indiana Same-Sex Couple Seeks Emergency Recognition of Their Marriage

As the nationwide fight for recognizing same-sex marriage continues, a story lies behind each couple seeking the dignity that a  legalized union  brings.   While some of the unions are full of what  new found love brings, most often the stories are of  long term partners looking forward to a next chapter, one of which they have never before had the opportunity to enjoy.

Veronica Romero and Mayra Yvette Rivera have been in a committed relationship for over 27 years, have two children, and reside in Indiana, a state that currently has a stay pending until a supreme court decision is made in recognition of same-sex marriage.   As described in this article, the two women were legally married in March of this year in Illinois and returned to their established lives in Indiana.   Romero and Rivera filed suit in U.S. District Court this week seeking the state’s recognition of their marriage.

The couple’s suit is one of  urgency due to Rivera’s advanced stage of ovarian cancer.    As debates continue as to whether or not same-sex marriage is morally acceptable or will lead to perversity throughout the nation, there are facts that are difficult for a reasonable person to ignore.   Without the option of  a legalized union, same-sex couples are not afforded legal rights  that a vast majority of American’s enjoy.     Such issues as care for a terminal spouse, custody of children, burial decisions and the like, are full of red tape and hoops for same-sex couples.

A joint stipulation between the parties has been filed in which Indiana has agreed to recognize the couple’s marriage, and in the event of death, will issue a death certificate recognizing Romero as the surviving spouse. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen has acknowledged the agreement and placed a stay on the case until such time the appeals court rules whether or not to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage.

The couple’s suit states, “Through its marriage ban, the state sends a purposeful message that the state views lesbian and gay men and their children as second-class members of society who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect and support that different-sex spouses and their families enjoy.”

If you or someone you know believe that their civil rights have been violated, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

      

 

Philadelphia School District Settles Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

On behalf of Siddiq Abu-Bakr, the Department of Justice filed suit against the School District of Philadelphia for alleged religious discrimination.   Abu-Bakr has worked for the school district as a police officer for 27 years and is Muslim.    In 2010, the district implemented a policy that prohibits school police officers from having facial hair that is longer than one quarter inch.   In observance of his Islamic faith, Abu-Bakr maintains a beard that is longer than a quarter inch.

As described in this article, when Abu-Bakr requested religious accommodation from the district to maintain his beard length, the district denied his request, and according to the suit, the district maintained a policy denying  religious accommodation to school police officers in regards to beard length.

The lawsuit argues that by failing to accommodate Abu-Bakr and other similarly situated employees,the school district was in strict violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.     The settlement reached between the school district and the United States  requires that the district implement a revised school police officer policy which allows officers the opportunity to request religious accommodation without fear of negative repercussions from the district.  The school district has also agreed to provide religious accommodation training  to all supervisors, managers, human resource officials and other individuals who may be benefit from such training.

Attorney for the Civil Rights Division, “We are pleased that the school district of Philadelphia has agreed to develop a revised policy that will allow school police officers to request religious accommodations without posing an undue hardship on the school district.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced discrimination due to religious beliefs, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

 

Appeals Court Reopens Child Slavery Case Against Nestle USA and Other US Companies

In 2005, three individuals filed suit against Nestle USA, Nestle SA of Switzerland, Archer Daniels Midland Co. of Chicago and Cargill Inc.of Minnesota alleging the companies contributed in child slavery.    The three Plaintiffs in this action worked on cocoa plantations in Ivory Coast during the 1990’s.

As detailed in this article, the lawsuit alleges that by giving money and providing training and equipment to Ivorian farmers that allegedly subjected  young workers to an inhumane work environment, the companies are aided and abetted  in a continued practice of child slavery.    According to the suit, the Plaintiffs  were taken to the plantation between the ages of 12 and 14  and once there were forced to work fourteen hour days six days a week, given little to eat and beaten if their work did not satisfy the overseer.

Bought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 and dismissed by a federal judge in 2010, the case has been reopened by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals.    The panel’s issued Opinion stating, “We conclude that the prohibition against slavery is universal and may be asserted against the corporate defendants in this case… There are no rules exempting acts of enslavement carried out on behalf of a corporation.”

Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson, “The allegations suggest that a myopic focus on profit over human welfare drove the defendants to act with the purpose of obtaining the cheapest cocoa possible, even it meant facilitating child slavery.”

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Catherine Sweetser, “The court has reestablished that corporations can be held accountable for making decisions in the United States that affect human rights in foreign countries.”

According to the Nestle website, Nestle became a founding participant in the International Cocoa Initiative, which is “dedicated to ending child and forced labor in cocoa growing, and eliminating child trafficking and abusive labor practices.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have been subjected to unlawful employment practices, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Arizona Recognizes One Couple’s Same-sex Marriage

An Arizona District Court recently issued an emergency ruling that the state must recognize the marriage between Fred McQuire and George Martinez.   Before Martinez’s death, the partners of forty five years were married in California.   As described in this article, when Martinez was diagnosed with Prostate cancer, the two Arizona residents were married in California and filed an emergency request immediately upon their return home to have their marriage recognized by the state.

As Federal law does not award spousal social security benefits, nor veteran benefits, to surviving spouses that have been married less than nine months to a year, respectively, McQuire will not be able to stay in the couple’s home due to financial restrictions.   McQuire believes that his suit is not just about his relationship, stating, “People are being denied their rights of survivorship, their dignity, their right to live the rest of their lives in the way their spouse would want them to live.”

In his emergency motion, Judge John Sedwick states, “The court has not yet decided whether there is conflict between Arizona law and the Constitution, but the court has decided that it is probable that there is such a conflict so that Arizona will be required to permit same-sex marriages.”   In response to the state’s argument that Arizona’s current laws that define marriage do not discriminate, Judge Sedwick “The reason why couples such as McQuire and Martinez may not marry is precisely because of their sexual orientation.”

Because he is the judge that will decide both of Arizona’s current suits that challenge the state’s current definition of marriage, Judge Sedwick’s motion to recognize McQuire and Martinez’s marriage is an important step in the fight for marriage equality.

If you or someone you know believe their civil rights have been violated,  the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.