In three long-awaited decisions made on June 29-30, Supreme Court shifted the relationship between an employer and employees in the legal plane. In affirmative action another decision concerning affirmative action and use of race-based decisions will compel employers to revise their employment and diversity plans. Another will directly affect the assessment employers use in the analysis of religious accommodations at the workplace. The most recent supreme court rulings’ civil rights impact case helps specify which liberties business people possess but may negatively affect employers who may not be informed.
Affirmative Action
On a six to three ruling, the recent court decisions and civil rights has nullified affirmative action admissions policies used by two prestigious universities of the country, Harvard University and the University of North Carolina stating that the policies’ use of race violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The case is titled: SFFA v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.
Background: In November 2014, the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed a separate lawsuit with both the Harvard and UNC arguing that the race-based admission was against Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Pierce). The universities were able to repel these challenges in the lower fora. The lower courts had ruled in favor of these policies infringement of the Equal Protection Clause was upheld by the Civil rights implications of Supreme Court rulings.
International law assignment help can now assist you with the topic if you stuck by doing it yourself (BAW, 2022).
The Court’s decision: The Chief Justice John Roberts stated for the majority that the Harvard and the UNC admissions policies fail to meet the constitutional strict scrutiny standard which is applied on racially defined decision making. The majority focused on the absence of goals and tangible criteria that would help distinguish between the declared motives for the use of race in the admission policy. The Court warned also against other forms of indirect discriminations saying that use of race has to be linked very closely to person’s relevant competencies, experience and performance. Regarding that, the Court stated that colleges are still free to “consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise” in light of its ruling. Slip op. at 39.
Through assignment help Hamilton you can work on civil rights assignments easily and get good marks as well.
What is the implication and consequence for the employers? Both universities’ claims brought to court also accused them of violating Section 5 of the Civil Rights of 1964, particularly Title VI. Title VI also has provisions that are against race discrimination as with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U. S. C. § 1981 in employment sphere. There are primary and secondary workplace diversity variables – there are many employers who incorporate affirmative action in their workplace policies either officially or unofficially, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives of various degrees to diversify and include the workforce.
Religious Accommodations
And the Supreme Court on June 29, 2023 in a 9-0 decision provided guidance where Title VII requires an employer to provide religious accommodations in the workplace and established a legal standard for employers to follow. The case is titled: Groff v. DeJoy, No. 122, 2020 WL 5124828 (Pa. Super. Aug. 26, 2020).
Background: This case started when petitioner Gerald Groff sued his employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS), under Title VII for failure to provide Groff with the requested religious accommodation of not working on sundays because of the petitioner’s religion. Concerning the request, the USPS indicated that it would place an undue burden. Similarly the lower courts supported USPS. The Supreme Court reversed.
The Court’s decision: The issues were tried on the legal rule formulated by this Honourable Court in the case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison in 1977. In Groff, the Court was able to define that the lower courts erred in using a Hardison reference on whether the requested religious accommodation places a burden on the employer which is excessive or monumental by suggesting that the employer should not be put to expense more than a de minimis cost. It also indicated that it is lawful for an employer to fail to provide an accommodation because doing so would cause undue cost to the business based on the organization’s specific type.
How can it be for the employers? Thus, based on Groff, employers ought to evaluate every potential dimension concerning how the diverse kinds of religious accommodations may moderate the character and cost of the specific companies. Employers ought to be aware of this shift in the future because a violation of such provisions signifies title VII exposure.
Freedom of Speech
For an epilogue more favorable to employers, on June 30, 2023 the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision has stated that the First Amendment does not allow states to make individuals speak messages they do not support. This case is titled: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis 303 Creative LLC, a graphic design business owned by Adria, Gilchrist & Rebecca, sued its client Elenis in the US Agency for contractual violation and freedom of expression right infringement.
Background: 303 Creative LLC was an entrepreneur firm that was established to provide website and graphic designing solutions, business consultancy on the marketing front, and social media management platforms. It was earlier seen that 303 Creative LLC’s owner Lorie Smith wished to expand her business in the market for wedding websites. But she was reluctant to do so since, she felt the state of Colorado would compel her to speak items she did not agree with such as same sex marriage.
The Court’s decision: The question in this case was if Colorado had a right to demand 303 Creative LLC publish messages Smith disapproved of. While the district court sitting in the Sixth Circuit entertained Smith’s complaint and dismissed it with prejudice, Tenth Circuit also upheld the decision of the district court. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the First Amendment Free Speech clause bars Colorado from compelling a person to speak in a way that the state approves but violates that man’s conscience on an issue of importance to him. At the time, Colorado was enforcing a legislation that forbade public-facing companies from refusing any client the full and equal enjoyment of their goods and services on the basis of their sexual orientation, among other groups. Smith thus filed a lawsuit to elucidate her constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
At Last
This case may comfort employers as businesspeople: no state government may compel an employer to impart messages and ideas that the employer abhors. However, related to this case, the employers should pay attention to certain aspects of employment. Although there are still many rights that workers can have under many state and federal laws, Higham is not completely wrong in his analysis of American employment relation. In no way is this case a way to weasel out of those protections.
