RELIGION & LAW SPRING 2011
DAILY ASSIGNMENTS & CLASS COVERAGE (1/18-2/3)
V = Pages in Volokh, Religion Clauses & Related Statutes
SS = Pages in Statutory Supplement
F = Pages in Posted Fajer Course Materials
IM = Pages in Posted Information Memos
TUE 1/18______
Intro to Course (Lecture)
Discussion Problems
Religious Exception to Alcohol Ban: Pros & Cons (Gov’t)
Posting of Ten Commandments (Gov’t)
Posting of Ten Commandments (Pvt.)
THU 1/20
Logistics
Assigning Student Responsibility for Discussion Problems
Explanation of Written Project
Discussion Problems
Religious Exception to Alcohol Ban: Pros & Cons (Pvt. Employer)
Intro to Statutory Causes of Action & Their Constitutional Context (Lecture)
Read V1-7, 440-42
Bring Statutory Supplement to Class (Electronically or Hard Copy)
TUE 1/25
Selection of Project Jurisdictions/Topics: Order of Selection
Overview of Statutory Causes of Action
THU 1/27
Selection of Project Jurisdictions/Topics
Non-Discrimination Principle: Free Exercise & Religious Practices
Readings (V7-33)
Discussion Problems
Religious Garb Statute (V10)
Mortmain Statutes (V10)
TUE 2/1
Discussion Problems Tax Exemptions (V25)
Non-Discrimination: Establishment Clause & Discrimination Among Religions
Readings (V33-40)
Discussion Problem: Peyote Exemption (V34) (Feinberg & Meyer)
Non-Discrimination: Private Defendants #1: Prima Facie Case Under Title VII
Readings (focus on treatment rather than accommodations claims):
- Shapolia v. Los Alamos National Lab, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993)
- Lubetsky v. Applied Card Systems, 296 F. 3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Isse v. American University, 540 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2008)
Discussion Questions: (1-3: Holmes & Mitchell; 4-6: Collins & Nielsen)
1. Why does the Shapolia court reject the use of the traditional burden shift for the case it is deciding? Do you agree with its reasoning?
2. Shapolia draws a parallel to “reverse discrimination” race cases. Why are such cases problematic under the McDonnell Douglas framework? Does the court’s comparison to these cases make sense?
3. Shapolia and Isse employ different versions of the prima facie test for disparate treatment. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
4. Lubetsky adds a requirement to the prima facie case for religious discrimination claims that the decision-maker was aware of the claimant’s religion. Why might this be necessary? Are the reasons behind adding this requirement unique to claims based on religion?
5. In Lubetsky, in a parenthetical describing the Beasley case, the court lists several kinds of evidence that can be used to meet the new requirement. Can you think of other ways to do so?
6. Do you agree with the court in Isse that Mr. Wyatt’s remarks are not sufficient to be considered “direct evidence” of discrimination? If so, how much more should be necessary?
THU 2/3: CLASS CANCELLED (SORRY!)
TUE 2/8
Non-Discrimination: Prima Facie Case Under Title VII (Continued)
Discussion Question 7: ALL
7. Carefully examine the court’s discussion of the evidence in Shapolia and Isse. Do you agree with all of the courts’ conclusions in these cases? Do these cases provide any lessons about ways in which religious discrimination claims might be different than other kinds of discrimination claims?
Non-Discrimination: No Discrimination Against the Irreligious
Readings (V41-89)
Discussion Problems:
Clergy-Congregant Privilege (V42-43) (Hammett & Neff)
Exemption from Housing Discrimination Law (V43) (Boaz & Thompson)
THU 2/10
Non-Discrimination: No Discrimination Against the Irreligious (cont’d)
Discussion Problem: Religious Picketing (V43) (McCall & Meyer)
Policy Segment: (V84-89) (Feinberg & Holmes: Strongest & Weakest Arguments)
No Endorsement Principle
Readings: Part I (V89-138)
Problem: Virginia Beach City Seal (V91)(Mitchell & Collins: Arguments from Readings Part I)
SUN 2/13: STATE PROJECTS STATUTE LIST DUE @ 8:00 p.m.
(Boaz, Collins, McCall, Meyer, Mitchell, Nielsen)
TUE 2/15
No Endorsement Principle Continued
Readings Part II (V138-86)
Problem: Virginia Beach City Seal (V91)(Nielsen & Hammitt: Arguments from Readings Part II)
Problem: Conflicts Among Rights (V171) (Neff & Boaz)
Policy Segment (V182-86) (Thompson & McCall: Strongest & Weakest Arguments plus Questions on V183-84)
THU 2/17
No Primary Religious Purpose
Readings (V186-216)
Discussion Problems
Evolution Disclaimer (V187) (Hammitt & Thompson)
Teaching that Human Life is Precious (V188) (Meyer & Collins)
Policy Segment (V215-16) (Nielsen: Strongest & Weakest Arguments)
SUN 2/20: FEDERAL PROJECTS CASE LIST DUE @ 8:00 p.m.
(Feinberg, Hammett, Holmes, Neff, Thompson)
TUE 2/22
No Coercion Principle
Readings (V216-30)
Discussion Problems
University Graduation Prayer (V217) (Feinberg, McCall & Mitchell)
Alcoholics Anonymous (V217-18) (Boaz, Neff & Holmes)
Get (V218-19) (Boaz, Neff & Holmes)
Pledge of Allegiance (V219-20) (Feinberg, McCall & Mitchell)
Policy Segment (V230) (Nielsen: Strongest & Weakest Arguments)
THU 2/24
No Religious Decisions Principle
Readings (V230-41)
Discussion Problems:
Kosher Enforcement (V231-32) (Hammitt & Collins)
Negligent Hiring (V232) (Meyer & Thompson)
SUN 2/27: STATE PROJECTS CASE LISTS DUE @ 8:00 p.m.
(Boaz, Collins, McCall, Meyer, Mitchell, Nielsen)
TUE 3/1
Non-Discrimination: Private Defendants #2: Religious Harassment
Materials & Assignments TBA
THU 3/3
Non-Discrimination: Private Defendants #3: Equal Terms under RLUIPA
Materials & Assignments TBA