Another case raising the issue of so-called conscience exemptions: this week, a group of 12 hospital nurses in New Jersey brought suit against their employer, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), for requiring them to participate in abortions. The plaintiffs allege that the hospital’s actions violate the “Church Amendment,” a federal law which forbids hospitals receiving federal funds, like UMDNJ, from requiring employees to participate in abortions if participation would violate the employees’ “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” The plaintiffs allege that the hospital’s actions violate state law as well. As my friend Rick Garnett at Mirror of Justice notes, this seems to be a pretty blatant violation of law, but, based on a student note I read recently, it’s not all that unusual. The complaint in the case, Danquah v. UMDNJ, is here. — MLM
Parkinson on Accommodating Religious Practice
Patrick Parkinson (University of Sydney Law School) has written an interesting piece, Accommodating Religious Beliefs in a Secular Age: The Issue of Conscientious Objection in the Workplace, that shows that disputes about conscience protections are occurring around the world. He considers two English cases. The abstract follows. — MLM
This article explores the scope for freedom of conscience in the workplace when people of faith dissent from the values of the majority. In particular, it examines the issues in two English cases, Ladele v London Borough of Islington and McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd, in which professionals lost their jobs because they had a conscientious, and faith-based, objection to providing a particular kind of service to gay and lesbian couples. Read more