IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/lawarc/m4znk_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Braidwood Exploit: On the RFRA Declaratory-Judgment Class-Action and Title VII Employer Liability

Author

Listed:
  • Pandya, Sachin S.

    (University of Connecticut)

  • McCormick, Marcia L.

    (Saint Louis University)

Abstract

This Article identifies a distinctive legal strategy for using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) to obtain an exemption for for-profit businesses to Title VII liability for their religiously motivated discrimination against gay and transgender employees and job applicants. The litigation strategy involves a declaratory judgment class action against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under RFRA. We primarily show how this strategy tries to exploit a key ambiguity in the compelling interest inquiry in RFRA and pre-1990 Free Exercise Clause doctrine, i.e., how to specify the size of the set of persons other than the RFRA claimant who would likely qualify for the exemption that the RFRA claimant wants if the RFRA claimant prevails—what we call the “putative RFRA exempted set.” We also show how well this litigation strategy may extend to exempt religiously motivated employers from liability under state employment discrimination law. In so doing, this Article contributes to the ongoing debate about the scope of exemptions for religiously motivated businesses.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:m4znk_v1
DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/m4znk_v1
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://osf.io/download/66fd636e8ec0978ad9a1ff05/
Download Restriction: no

File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/m4znk_v1?utm_source=ideas
LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:m4znk_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.