What Does the Case of the Praying Football Coach Mean for Employers?

Global HR

​The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of a high school football coach who was fired for praying at the 50-yard line after games. Although the case involves First Amendment rights in public-sector employment, private employers may be watching the case since religious accommodation is a hot topic in the workplace.

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court was asked to decide several issues, including whether a public school employee is engaged in government speech that lacks First Amendment protection when he says a short, quiet prayer by himself in front of students.

“The First Amendment ‘free speech’ argument really only affects government employers, like a school district, but I think private and public employers will be watching this case to see how the Supreme Court views the accommodation efforts apparently made by the school district,” said Kelly Dobbs Bunting, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig in Philadelphia.

The Debate

During oral argument on April 25, lawyers for the coach and the school district had different descriptions of the activities that led to the coach’s termination.

On behalf of the coach, Paul Clement, an attorney with Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., said the prayer was “brief” and “quiet.”

“When Coach Kennedy took a knee at midfield after games to say a brief prayer of thanks, his expression was entirely his own,” Clement said. “That private religious expression was doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses.”

He argued that “the government does not endorse all private religious speech just because it takes place on the school side of the gates.”

Several of the justices seemed to sympathize with the coach. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas said, “We know [praying is not] a part of his job, especially since the school district didn’t know anything about it initially and it objected to it.”

Clement replied, “That’s music to my ears, Justice Thomas.” He said, “We’re saying this isn’t part of his job, so it’s private speech.” He added, “we’d also say, because it’s not part of his job, it’s private religious activity that’s protected by the Free Exercise Clause.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the coach wasn’t saying “huddle up, team” before he prayed. The school district, however, raised concerns about the coach pressuring students to join the prayer.

Richard Katskee, the legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C., represented the school district at oral argument. He said the school district sent the coach a letter saying he could pray where it was visible to students but asking him not to pray with and to the students.

The coach prayed quietly at games without issue until he sent a letter “demanding to go back and do what [he] was doing before, which is audible prayers,” and insisting that “students have to be able to join,” according to Katskee, who noted that the coach went to the press and said, “This is how I make these kids better people.”

Katskee said some students in attendance at games were only 14 years old. The coach’s actions “pressured them to pray and also divided the coaching staff, sparked vitriol against … school officials, and led to the field being stormed and students getting knocked down. The idea that the school district couldn’t do something when a zoo was created on the field [is] unimaginable,” he argued.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed sympathetic to the school district’s arguments and discussed scenarios in which students may feel coerced to join the prayer if they think it will make the coach more likely to put them into a football game. “And this is a kind of coercion that’s improper for 16-year-olds,” she said.

Clement replied that “when the coach is by himself at the midfield giving a 15-second fleeting prayer … if you call that coercion, you are making an important category mistake.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by June.

Standards for Private Employers

Although the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private businesses, employers with at least 15 employees must comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits covered businesses from discriminating against employees based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Title VII requires an employer to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance, unless it would cause an undue hardship on the business.

What is an undue hardship? Courts have said that an undue hardship is created by a religious accommodation that has more than a ”de minimis,” or very small, cost or burden on the employer.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces Title VII, employers should engage in an interactive process to see if a reasonable accommodation can be provided.

“A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion,” the EEOC said. “Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and lateral transfers are examples of accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs.”  

Products You May Like

Articles You May Like

UK: Making Reasonable Adjustments for Dyslexic Workers
DEI: 4 Best Practices for Organizing Effective Employee Resource Groups
Tech Layoffs Are Deteriorating DE&I Efforts
8 HR Trends to Ponder Ahead of 2023
Viewpoint: Businesses Must Adjust to Fill the Talent Gap

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *