|
|
|
January 29, 2008
No lawyer left behind!
Blogging is going to be lighter than usual for the next few days, as I have to complete my 25 hours of mandatory Continuing Legal Education. Wow. I see that I have been blogging so long that this is the second time my continuing education has interfered with my blogging. Hearing about recent legal developments has a way of upsetting me, though (as it did two years ago to hear about California employment law). Yesterday, one of the courses dealt with religious discrimination, and among the subjects was the nature of what it is that constitutes a bona fide religion. I couldn't stop thinking about the "church" of Scientology. I don't think it is a religion, but legally, it either is or is not. If it is, there's something I find disturbing about the idea that if I ran a business I might have to hire a Scientologist if one applied. Why is it that you can discriminate in employment against people who have political opinions that offend you, but not views of the unknown which offend you? While the First Amendment would seem to protect political and opinions equally, it is silent on matters of discrimination, which we have fetishized beyond belief. Anyway, my education continues. At the expense of my blogging! MORE: Readers searching for views of the unknown (and who hate mortality) might want to read this "guest post from the long dead" which I copied and pasted the last time I faced execution by legal education. posted by Eric on 01.29.08 at 11:24 AM
Comments
My understanding of the rule is that it is not generally illegal to discriminate on the basis of politics per se, but only for engaging in political activities. Which would mean that you could fire someone for being conservative or liberal, but not for membership in a party, gathering signatures, protesting, voting, etc. Of course, what if the political views are offensive to other workers? Could they claim that this was a "Hostile Work Environment"? http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/breadth.htm If protecting political opinion goes far enough, I think employers could be placed in a double bind. A political opinion could be both protected AND harassing! Eric Scheie · January 30, 2008 03:47 PM |
|
February 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• "How are we going to manage to lose this time?"
• Extreme common sense? • The price is nuts • Guilty Until Proven Innocent • CALL THE ACLU! • We Have Beaches • Details which give me a splitting hair ache • Once a RINO, always a RINO • Coulter endorses Hillary • They Elected To Receive
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Speaking of California employment law, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of political opinion here, either.