Can an employer require employees be Christian? One of the "essential duties and requirements" for this job posting on Stack Overflow is: Maintains a personal, active relationship with Jesus Christ and is a consistent witness for Jesus Christ Given that the job is with a Christian evangelical organization, this seems like a reasonable requirement: after all, it's in their interest to hire subject matter experts. But under what circumstances is that requirement legal or illegal in the United States, and specifically North Carolina?
There are exceptions to the Title VII prohibition, which "does not apply to discrimination by a religious organization on the basis of religion in hiring and discharge. The exemption applies to an organization whose 'purpose and character are primarily religious.'" In all other respects, a religious organization is bound by the law that everyone else must follow. The EEOC defines "religion" as "includ[ing] moral or ethical beliefs as to right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views", but that does not seem to encompass metaphysical beliefs (e.g. about reincarnation, who created the universe...). They also state that "Religious discrimination also includes discrimination against someone because s/he is an atheist". The wording there is of some significance, since it does not say that an atheist organization is a "religious organization" which would be entitled to discriminate in favor of atheists in hiring practices. The statutory definitions section of the law tells us that "religion" includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business which doesn't actually support the commission's decision to extend coverage to atheist employees. That interpretation comes from post-statutory case law, such as Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 773 F. Supp. 304, 305. What is unclear is what a "religious organization" is. The exemption comes from 42 USC 2000e–1(a): This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities but the definitions do not clearly state that an organization dedicates to denying religious beliefs is legally subsumed under the exemption. Billy Graham would be, dunno about an atheist organization.
united-states Absent an agreement to the contrary, the employer can make expert testimony a requirement for further employment, and the employee can quit if this is not acceptable. As a practical matter, employees almost always agree to do so without any serious objections to testifying as experts on behalf of their employers. Also, U.S. courts distinguish between retained and non-retained expert testimony. A retained expert is someone testifying solely because they were hired to do so in particular case. A non-retained expert is someone who has personal knowledge of the events in the case who has expertise in an area and is being asked to testify about that personal knowledge in a manner informed by that person's expertise. A non-retained expert can be compelled to testify by subpoena, even if an agreement for that person to testify as an expert voluntarily is not reached. Many employees asked by an employer to provide expert testimony would fall in the category of a non-retained expert who could be compelled to testify about the matter from their personal knowledge in a manner informed by their expertise, even if they quit. But, a non-retained expert can only be compelled to testify at trial, not to cooperate in preparing for that testimony with an attorney for the employer or preparing a written report in advance of that testimony. Incidentally, it would be the rare exception to the rule for the written report of a retained expert witness in advance of their testimony at trial or in a deposition to make that report stating that opinion under oath. Typically, it would be signed but not sworn to by the expert. the court requires (version 1) the company (version 2) someone with expertise from the company to provide a sworn opinion (something like &quot;the process to do X is Y&quot;), and answer questions in court. In U.S. cases, it isn't &quot;the court&quot; that is proactively telling litigants what evidence they have to provide. The law tells litigants what has to be proved. Sometimes, in U.S. non-criminal litigation, expert testimony from someone is required to proven or disprove an element of a case. For example, in professional malpractice cases, someone with expertise in that profession must testify that the professional did or did not perform the work which is the basis of the lawsuit in a manner that falls below the standard of care for a professional of that type. Other times, expert testimony is one means of many possible means to prove a fact in the case. For example, one could prove lost profits by showing that a specific contract was lost by someone's action, or one could instead hire an expert to show what profits could have been earned if something was done.
Unless your employer agreed in a contract to not discuss your employment, then there is no legal restrictions on them discussing anything about your employment. If they say things that are untrue you could sue them for defamation.
In england-and-wales there is no legal requirement, in the private sector, to advertise vacancies and employers can recruit whoever they choose as long as they do not commit unlawful direct or indirect discrimination and follow their own internal HR policies. Re: In the western hemisphere is it quite legal for employers to do things like... Exclude close family/marital relations of existing employees? YES Exclude internal applicants from consideration for jobs for which they have relevant qualifications? YES Hire non-local (here defined as those who can commute to work from their existing home) candidates in preference to local ones similarly qualified? YES Hire foreigners where they have suitable work permits? YES Summarily hire members of the business owner's family? YES as long as they are not &quot;phantom&quot; employees only put on the books soley to evade tax liabilities by, for example, paying a salary when they don't do any actual work.
The criteria used by the IRS suggest that for federal tax purposes, the cashier would be properly classified as a contractor. Behavioral Control: A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the work performed by the worker, even if that right is not exercised. There is probably some training involved here, but it seems negligible. Has the company actually retained the right to direct and control the cashier? Is he obligated to use their register, as they tell him to use it? Is his work evaluated for compliance with those instructions? I'd guess that in most cases, the company doesn't actually care about any of this. As long as the company got all the money it was owed, would it really care if the cashier just stuck the money in his pockets until the end of the day? I'd also argue that it isn't really the employer controlling the when and where of the contractor's work, but rather the circumstances. Classifying him as an employee because he has to be at the event doesn't really make any more sense than saying your plumber is an employee because he has to come to your house to do the job. Financial Control: Does the business have a right to direct or control the financial and business aspects of the worker's job? The investment in the cash register seems relatively nominal. The company probably does not reimburse the cashier for expenses incurred in getting the job done. The cashier is presumably free to offer his services to others. The cashier is presumably being paid a one-time, flat fee. As you noted, though, the fact that there isn't much profit-loss opportunity is one factor pointing in the other direction. Relationship: The type of relationship depends upon how the worker and business perceive their interaction with one another. The fact that this is a single, hours-long job is probably the strongest evidence that the cashier is a contractor. Further, the cashier's job is not a key part of the business, as it is only a minor portion of an event that the company has never performed before and has no apparent intention of repeating. I assume that the company is not providing health benefits, sick time, etc., and that any contract with the cashier includes no language suggestive of an employer-employee relationship. Conclusion: The employee-contractor distinction is pretty fact-intensive, but based on what you've provided, there seems to be a much stronger argument that the cashier would be a contractor.
This is a pretty good guide to the student's right to express their views on religion (for or against). For example you may pray in school, but you cannot compel others to listen to your prayers. You may discuss Jesus Christ and you may advocate a religious perspective, if it is on topic (e.g. in a class discussion abortion, but not in an algebra class). There are familiar ways of saying "Jesus Christ" which would be disruptive, but a general prohibition against uttering a name (on the grounds that the name is of a religious figure) is not a proper application of the separation of church and state -- as the ACLU statement says, SCOTUS did not make public schools religion-free zones. Whether or not the teacher was given the authority to forbid mentioning religious figures by some supervisor, that would not have been proper authorization. Official advocacy of religion in general, or a particular religion, is contrary to the First Amendment, as is official prohibition of religion in general, or a particular religion.
The law doesn't distinguish between two Christians with divergent beliefs, or between an atheist and a Christian (obviously with divergent beliefs). The law simply does not care what religion you have, or whether you have one. The law just says "follow the law!". The complication is that part of the First Amendment which says that the law is to be neutral as to religion also has what's known as the "Free Exercise Clause", the part that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", which has been taken to refer to actions undertaken because of that belief. There have been various rulings on the conflict between religious doctrine and laws requiring or prohibiting certain actions (mandatory flag salutes, conscription, religious pamphleting). When a law conflicts with a fundamental right such as a right protected by the First Amendment, such a law is allowed only in narrow circumstances (known as strict scrutiny). It is up to Congress to state what kinds of First Amendment-based exceptions there are to laws. In a case involving the draft, SCOTUS held in US v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 that The test of religious belief within the meaning of the exemption in § 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption This view underlies the current regulation on employment and religious discrimination in 29 CFR 1605.1 that In most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. The question that EEOC or the courts would have to answer is, what fundamental life belief is being violated by compelling a certain action? Forcing Muslims to eat pork violates a fundamental belief of Muslims. Prohibiting Muslim employers from discriminating against pork-eaters does not violate those beliefs, because there is no fundamental life belief held by Muslims that it is a mortal sin to hire pork eaters. In this case, Ann is at a disadvantage because she can't maintain that being forced to hire Christine violates a fundamental belief of hers (it's like refusing to hire pork-eaters). If Christine was obnoxious in espousing her viewpoint in a manner that reflected badly on Ann's business, Ann can fire Christine. Ann might, on those same grounds, refuse to hire Christine if there was a well-justified belief that such damage to her business will result (you don't have to wait until your business is destroyed). The (implied) fact on Christine's resume is not sufficient evidence that Christine will cause a problem for Ann's business. Instead, it is a plain instance of religious discrimination, which is prohibited by law.
No - there is no general requirement to be fair to all applicants when selecting someone for a job. It's not even clear how this would work - you would need to define what "fair" means in this context, and there would be many competing definitions. Is it fair to prefer an applicant who has more experience because they received help from their parents with landing their first job? Is it fair to prefer someone with a certain look for an acting job? Is it fair to prefer someone who happens to have a similar personality to the person hiring? So if the employer finds it more convenient to use the same test every year, and if they do not mind that this gives some applicants an advantage, they are free to do that. The only exception is that discrimination based on certain, specific factors (often called "protected characteristics") is usually outlawed. The list depends on jurisdictions, but usually includes things like gender, race and age. However, even in that case discrimination is allowed if the business can demonstrate a genuine need - for example, when looking for an actor, it is allowed to hire based on gender.