Unemployment for quitting job to sell alcohol

[Quantum Windbag]

I know which way I think it should go, lets see how many get it right.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court generally rejected the notion that people are entitled to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, but preserved the Sherbert doctrine as to unemployment compensation schemes:

The Sherbert test … was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct…. [A] distinctive feature of unemployment compensation programs is that their eligibility criteria invite consideration of the particular circumstances behind an applicant’s unemployment: “The statutory conditions … provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, ‘without good cause,’ he had quit work or refused available work. The ‘good cause’ standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions.” … [O]ur decisions in the unemployment cases stand for the proposition that where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of “religious hardship” without compelling reason.
​

So here’s an interesting incident I just ran across: A woman, A.M., was working at a convenience store. The store got a permit to sell beer, and the woman then quit, because her religious principles forbade her from participating in the sale of alcohol. The unemployment compensation board denied the benefits, and the woman appealed.
What should the result be?

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unemployment Compensation When Someone Quits a Job Because of Religious Objections to Selling Alcohol

 

[GuyPinestra]

I think she should get the UI...

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Me too. even without the religion thing. It changes the clientele, makes the place a lot different than the place she first worked.

 

[JoeB131]

Since she quit and wasn't fired, nope, she shouldn't.

Unemployment insurance is ONLY if your job was eliminated through no fault of your own.

She made a choice not to work there.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm inclined toward granting unemployment. The woman was hired under a certain understanding of what the job would entail. The employer was the one who made the decision to expand the job role in a way that impacted the woman's ability to do her job within the confines of her religious practices. Selling alcohol was not what she signed on to do.

That being said, for all we know there could be additional details to this. For example, if the woman was informed at the time of hiring that the employer intended to do this, and she accepted the job anyway, then that would invalidate her "good cause" because she accepted the terms. Also, it would have probably given her a stronger case overall if, instead of quitting, she had forced her employer to fire her for refusal to sell alcohol. But I'm only mentioning that mostly as an academic point.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

no, of course she shouldn't get the UI.

sadly , she probably did.

 

[francoHFW]

I'll go with the legal system...except the SC lol.

 

[SillyWabbit]

If said employee was not made aware that the sale of alcohol may be a part of this business' future, then yes, she's entitled--maybe. This hinges on the word "participate." Does simply deriving a wage from a business which takes in money from the sale of alcohol constitute the participation in the sale of alcohol?

If she's sweeping the floors, but not selling the hooch, is she participating in the sale of said booze?

Who's to determine that?

 

[Inthemiddle]

This hinges on the word "participate." Does simply deriving a wage from a business which takes in money from the sale of alcohol constitute the participation in the sale of alcohol?

If she's sweeping the floors, but not selling the hooch, is she participating in the sale of said booze?

Who's to determine that?

I don't think it will hinge on that at all. That is a question that deals with the nature of the religious belief. And the courts will not dare venture into the waters of trying to interpret or define such beliefs. The court will take at face value the fact that the woman objected on religious grounds. What this will "hinge" on is whether a religious objection constitutes "good cause" in this particular case.

 

[Si modo]

I know which way I think it should go, lets see how many get it right.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court generally rejected the notion that people are entitled to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, but preserved the Sherbert doctrine as to unemployment compensation schemes:

The Sherbert test … was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct…. [A] distinctive feature of unemployment compensation programs is that their eligibility criteria invite consideration of the particular circumstances behind an applicant’s unemployment: “The statutory conditions … provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, ‘without good cause,’ he had quit work or refused available work. The ‘good cause’ standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions.” … [O]ur decisions in the unemployment cases stand for the proposition that where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of “religious hardship” without compelling reason.
​

So here’s an interesting incident I just ran across: A woman, A.M., was working at a convenience store. The store got a permit to sell beer, and the woman then quit, because her religious principles forbade her from participating in the sale of alcohol. The unemployment compensation board denied the benefits, and the woman appealed.
What should the result be?

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unemployment Compensation When Someone Quits a Job Because of Religious Objections to Selling Alcohol

I haven't enough information. What I have is that she accepted employment at a business whose business was known to her at the time she accepted.

The business changed and her employment changed into something she knew she could not do and she quit. This is no fault of hers. It's not a fault of the business, either.

But, did she communicate this conflict of her religion with her job in the newly defined business to her superiors? If not, then no unemployment benefits for her.
If so, did they make offer reasonable accommodations to allow her to continue her employment?

 

[del]

I know which way I think it should go, lets see how many get it right.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court generally rejected the notion that people are entitled to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, but preserved the Sherbert doctrine as to unemployment compensation schemes:

The Sherbert test … was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct…. [A] distinctive feature of unemployment compensation programs is that their eligibility criteria invite consideration of the particular circumstances behind an applicant’s unemployment: “The statutory conditions … provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, ‘without good cause,’ he had quit work or refused available work. The ‘good cause’ standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions.” … [O]ur decisions in the unemployment cases stand for the proposition that where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of “religious hardship” without compelling reason.
​

So here’s an interesting incident I just ran across: A woman, A.M., was working at a convenience store. The store got a permit to sell beer, and the woman then quit, because her religious principles forbade her from participating in the sale of alcohol. The unemployment compensation board denied the benefits, and the woman appealed.
What should the result be?

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unemployment Compensation When Someone Quits a Job Because of Religious Objections to Selling Alcohol

I haven't enough information. What I have is that she accepted employment at a business whose business was known to her at the time she accepted.

The business changed and her employment changed into something she knew she could not do and she quit. This is no fault of hers. It's not a fault of the business, either.

But, did she communicate this conflict of her religion with her job in the newly defined business to her superiors? If not, then no unemployment benefits for her.
If so, did they make offer reasonable accommodations to allow her to continue her employment?

should they be required to? a religious belief isn't a disability.

if she quit, she shouldn't get ui, imo

 

[Si modo]

I know which way I think it should go, lets see how many get it right.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unemployment Compensation When Someone Quits a Job Because of Religious Objections to Selling Alcohol

I haven't enough information. What I have is that she accepted employment at a business whose business was known to her at the time she accepted.

The business changed and her employment changed into something she knew she could not do and she quit. This is no fault of hers. It's not a fault of the business, either.

But, did she communicate this conflict of her religion with her job in the newly defined business to her superiors? If not, then no unemployment benefits for her.
If so, did they make offer reasonable accommodations to allow her to continue her employment?

should they be required to? a religious belief isn't a disability.

if she quit, she shouldn't get ui, imo

You're right, it's not. It just seems like a question that is pertinent.

I agree that if someone quits, no UI, in general. But, the job she accepted was changed to something she could no longer accept. When folks get laid off because business is down (it changed) then they get UI.

Just thinking 'out loud' here.

So, there is a similarity to that. Through no fault of her own she could no longer do the job. BUT, that's an issue only to her, not to the average worker.

I dunno, to be honest.

 

[Si modo]

I'm drawing an anaology of this situation to pharmacists refusing to dispense/sell day-after drugs, for example.

The pharmacist has his/her right to their religion and the practice thereof, but they should let the business know ahead of time that they can't do that part of the job. Another pharmacist can easily do that for them. If the business accepts, then hire the pharmacist. If they don't, then the pharmacist should look somewhere where they do accept this glitch. This seems like a win-win for all.

If the pharmacist all of a sudden (or after being hired) tells their employer they can't do the duty, then tough cookies for them.

If the pharmacist has been dispensing drugs without issue before the release of the day-after drugs then must dispense and sell them, the nature of the business, or at least part of it, has changed. I believe he has a right to refuse to dispense the medication, especially when accommodations, reasonable ones at that (another pharmacists does that specific one), can be made.

My favorite checker at the grocery is Muslim. When customers buy beer or wine, someone runs up to the register to scan and bag that for her.

So, what is different here, I'm wondering?

 

[del]

i don't know, but if she chose to quit, i don't see how she qualifies.

it's an interesting case.

 

[SillyWabbit]

This hinges on the word "participate." Does simply deriving a wage from a business which takes in money from the sale of alcohol constitute the participation in the sale of alcohol?

If she's sweeping the floors, but not selling the hooch, is she participating in the sale of said booze?

Who's to determine that?

I don't think it will hinge on that at all. That is a question that deals with the nature of the religious belief. And the courts will not dare venture into the waters of trying to interpret or define such beliefs. The court will take at face value the fact that the woman objected on religious grounds. What this will "hinge" on is whether a religious objection constitutes "good cause" in this particular case.

Obviously, "good cause" is subjective.

This is from CA's FAQ:

FAQ - Eligibility

"I just quit my job. Will I be eligible?

When an individual files a claim for UI benefits, the Department documents the reason the individual is no longer working, and includes it in the Notice of Claim Filed, DE 1101CZ, which is mailed to the last employer. The employer may also provide written information about the reason the individual is no longer working when responding to this notice.

If the individual quit, the EDD will conduct a telephone interview with the individual and the employer approximately two weeks after the claim is filed to determine whether or not the individual is eligible for UI benefits, according to state law and regulations.

State law provides that an individual who quits his/her job may be eligible for UI benefits provided there was “good cause” for leaving employment, and the individual made all reasonable attempts to keep their job (e.g., request of leave of absence or transfer). Once all reasonable alternatives to leaving have been attempted, good cause may include situations such as leaving work due to unsafe working conditions, leaving work based on a medical doctor’s advice, or leaving work to protect oneself or one’s child from domestic violence.

The EDD staff will determine on a case-by-case basis, whether the facts presented for the quit are “good cause” according to state law. The individual must also meet all other eligibility requirements before UI benefits can be paid.

The Department’s law and policy guidelines regarding Voluntary Quits are available on the EDD Web site."

Voluntary Quit VQ 90 - Conscientious Objection Based on Religious, Ethical, Moral, or Philosophical Beliefs

"And, if the claimant can establish a "sincerely held religious belief," his or her expression of that belief is entitled to protection even from a disqualification resulting from a voluntary quit."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since she quit and wasn't fired, nope, she shouldn't.

Unemployment insurance is ONLY if your job was eliminated through no fault of your own.

She made a choice not to work there.

Or if you had good cause to quit. This is just one state, the first that came up on Google, but it does illustrate the point.

Can I Get Unemployment if I Quit? | Connecticut Network for Legal Aid

 

[GWV5903]

I know which way I think it should go, lets see how many get it right.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court generally rejected the notion that people are entitled to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, but preserved the Sherbert doctrine as to unemployment compensation schemes:

The Sherbert test … was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct…. [A] distinctive feature of unemployment compensation programs is that their eligibility criteria invite consideration of the particular circumstances behind an applicant’s unemployment: “The statutory conditions … provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, ‘without good cause,’ he had quit work or refused available work. The ‘good cause’ standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions.” … [O]ur decisions in the unemployment cases stand for the proposition that where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of “religious hardship” without compelling reason.
​

So here’s an interesting incident I just ran across: A woman, A.M., was working at a convenience store. The store got a permit to sell beer, and the woman then quit, because her religious principles forbade her from participating in the sale of alcohol. The unemployment compensation board denied the benefits, and the woman appealed.
What should the result be?

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unemployment Compensation When Someone Quits a Job Because of Religious Objections to Selling Alcohol

No, her religious beliefs have no bearing on UI, the purpose is to help you transition to another job. She should have obtained employment else were before quiting...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This hinges on the word "participate." Does simply deriving a wage from a business which takes in money from the sale of alcohol constitute the participation in the sale of alcohol?

If she's sweeping the floors, but not selling the hooch, is she participating in the sale of said booze?

Who's to determine that?

I don't think it will hinge on that at all. That is a question that deals with the nature of the religious belief. And the courts will not dare venture into the waters of trying to interpret or define such beliefs. The court will take at face value the fact that the woman objected on religious grounds. What this will "hinge" on is whether a religious objection constitutes "good cause" in this particular case.

I thought you said that the law never made exceptions for people and their beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know which way I think it should go, lets see how many get it right.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court generally rejected the notion that people are entitled to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, but preserved the Sherbert doctrine as to unemployment compensation schemes:

The Sherbert test … was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct…. [A] distinctive feature of unemployment compensation programs is that their eligibility criteria invite consideration of the particular circumstances behind an applicant’s unemployment: “The statutory conditions … provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, ‘without good cause,’ he had quit work or refused available work. The ‘good cause’ standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions.” … [O]ur decisions in the unemployment cases stand for the proposition that where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of “religious hardship” without compelling reason.
​

So here’s an interesting incident I just ran across: A woman, A.M., was working at a convenience store. The store got a permit to sell beer, and the woman then quit, because her religious principles forbade her from participating in the sale of alcohol. The unemployment compensation board denied the benefits, and the woman appealed.
What should the result be?

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unemployment Compensation When Someone Quits a Job Because of Religious Objections to Selling Alcohol

No, her religious beliefs have no bearing on UI, the purpose is to help you transition to another job. She should have obtained employment else were before quiting...

Not true.

From my link in the OP.

Most states will let people who quit their jobs collect unemployment compensation only if they had “good cause” for leaving, and if they are available to take another job (unless they have “good cause” for declining that). In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), Adell Sherbert, “a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was discharged by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. When she was unable to obtain other employment because from conscientious scruples she would not take Saturday work, she filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act.” The state concluded that she wasn’t entitled to the benefits because she was refusing jobs without “good cause.” But the Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning (in part):

 

[GWV5903]

I know which way I think it should go, lets see how many get it right.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Unemployment Compensation When Someone Quits a Job Because of Religious Objections to Selling Alcohol

No, her religious beliefs have no bearing on UI, the purpose is to help you transition to another job. She should have obtained employment else were before quiting...

Not true.

From my link in the OP.

Most states will let people who quit their jobs collect unemployment compensation only if they had “good cause” for leaving, and if they are available to take another job (unless they have “good cause” for declining that). In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), Adell Sherbert, “a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was discharged by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. When she was unable to obtain other employment because from conscientious scruples she would not take Saturday work, she filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act.” The state concluded that she wasn’t entitled to the benefits because she was refusing jobs without “good cause.” But the Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning (in part):

I understand, if I was the employer I would fight the claim...