Supreme Court declines to hear Sabbath accommodation case

[Stan]

The Supreme court has decided against hearing a workplace accommodation case involving a Seventh-day Adventist, but hints that it may revisit employer accommodation standards in the future. 

The post Supreme Court declines to hear Sabbath accommodation case appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience.

View the full article

[Gregory Matthews]

Pay attention to my quote below.  Three justices of the US Supreme court have stated that this case was not the right case to address the major issue.

I can feel sorry for Darrell Patterson.   I can be thankful for his stand for what he believed God wanted him to take.  But, that does not mean that his case was likely to make good law.

In my opinion the fact that Patterson was offered an accommodation, which he refused, made it likely that the Court would rule against him.  Such would have set a national standard which would have hurt SDAs. 

SDA Attornies to whom I talked to about this case informed me that they did not believe that this would be a good case to take before the Supreme Court.

If I had been as advisor to Patterson, I would have advised him to take the offer that Walgreens made to him.

We need to wait for a better case to litigate.

Quote

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, penned a two-page detached opinion stating that the issue deserves review but that "this case does not present a good vehicle," to address the issue1. The disputed point between parties in a lawsuit; 2. To send out officially, as in a court issuing an order. adequately. Justice Alito stated, "I reiterate that review of the Hardison issue should be undertaken when a petition in an appropriate case comes before us."

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is the decision in this case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-349_7j70.pdf

I agree in the end that this case does not present a good vehicle for revisiting Hardison. I therefore concur in the denial of cer-tiorari, but I reiterate that review of the Hardison issue should be undertaken when a petition in an appropriate case comes before us.