Free Delivery Over $100
|
|
|||
|
||||
OverviewReligious freedom is a fundamental and relatively uncontested right in both the United States and Europe. But other values like equality, justice, and the right to a private life are just as precious. Managing such conflicts has become a highly contested and politicized area of law and nowhere are such conflicts more evident – or more challenging – than those arising in the workplace. By comparing United States Federal Courts’ approach to free exercise in the workplace with that of the European Court of Human Rights, this book explores two very different methodologies for adjudicating rights conflicts. In examining methods and results, case by case, issue by issue and addressing each step of the analytical processes taken by judges, it becomes apparent that the United States has lost its way in the quest for equality and justice. It is argued here that while the European approach has its own flaws, its proportionality approach may offer vital lessons for United States practice. The book will make compelling reading for researchers, academics, and policy-makers working in the areas of law and religion, human rights law, constitutional law, and comparative law. Full Product DetailsAuthor: Gregory MosePublisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd Imprint: Routledge Weight: 0.620kg ISBN: 9781032490663ISBN 10: 1032490667 Pages: 276 Publication Date: 04 August 2023 Audience: College/higher education , Tertiary & Higher Education Format: Hardback Publisher's Status: Active Availability: In Print  This item will be ordered in for you from one of our suppliers. Upon receipt, we will promptly dispatch it out to you. For in store availability, please contact us. Table of ContentsTable of cases Acknowledgments Introduction: two traditions of balancing rights PART I Freedom of religion in the United States and the European Court of Human Rights 1 The first freedom: religious free exercise in US federal courts 2 Tiered review in US free exercise cases Rational basis scrutiny and the emerging MFN standard The mechanics of strict scrutiny Determining “substantial burden” Determining “compelling state interest” Narrow tailoring and the “least restrictive means” test Intermediate scrutiny as an ad hoc range of standards Balancing as a misnomer as applied in US courts 3 Religious freedom in the European Court of Human Rights The Convention system The protection of religious freedom Religious symbols and clothing Conscientious objection Autonomy and liberty of religious institutions 4 The mechanics of European proportionality analysis The traditional test Determining the legitimacy of aims Determining suitability of limitations on free exercise Determining necessity Proportionality stricto sensu The ECtHR’s modified approach to proportionality Legitimate aim Necessary in a democratic society and the final balance PART II Religion in the workplace 5 Religious conflicts in the workplace: symbols, speech, and moral complicity Common challenges and diverging approaches to accommodation The debate over religion versus other beliefs: is religion special? The role of the judiciary in granting exemptions for religion or belief Contrasting approaches to religious accommodation in the workplace The treatment of religious adornment: clothing, grooming, and symbols Adornment cases involving the public image of the employer The fact-sensitive approach to health and safety issues A trend towards convergence in religious adornment cases? Proselytism and religious opinions at work Compelled expression and complicity claims Contrasting traditions of compelled expression Complicity and the behavior of third parties A disparity in focus in regard to complicity Convergence and polarization in the types of claims 6 Religious freedom and three types of employer Cases involving government or government-mandated employers Cases involving religious employers Religious employers and the ministerial exception in the US Additional protections for US religious employers The European focus on church autonomy Religious employer cases compared Religion in the for-profit workplace Debates over corporate personhood in the US courts The European Court of Human Rights’ context-sensitive balancing approach The cases compared: similar reasoning, differing preoccupations Similar challenges and diverging approaches in specific workplace environments 7 Assessing religious burdens and state interests Evaluating the infringement and burden US courts and the contentious “substantial burden” test ECtHR and the flexible concept of “interference” Comparing the roles of religious burden Evaluating the legitimacy of state interest ECtHR’s conception of “legitimate aims” in the workplace: a permissive approach to a restricted range of objectives The de-emphasized role of legitimacy in US courts Comparing the two approaches to legitimate state interests Measuring the importance of the state interest ECtHR’s minimalist review of state interests US courts and the tiered review of state interests Contrasting approaches with some common ground 8 Balancing religious imperatives and secular rights Assessing the means/ends relationship ECtHR’s deferential stance regarding the means/ends relationship The means/ends fit in US courts: a wide range of standards Comparing the review of the means/ends relationship: a mutual concern for context Assessing the means/ends/burden relationship as an overall balance The ECtHR’s decisive application of holistic balancing The US courts’ evasion of genuine balancing 9 Conclusion: The price of free exercise IndexReviewsAuthor InformationGregory Mose is a professor of international law and politics at the American College of the Mediterranean in Aix-en-Provence, France. Tab Content 6Author Website:Countries AvailableAll regions |
||||
