{"id":2985,"date":"2017-07-13T16:44:52","date_gmt":"2017-07-13T20:44:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistajuridica.uprrp.edu\/?p=2985"},"modified":"2017-07-13T16:44:52","modified_gmt":"2017-07-13T20:44:52","slug":"employment-discrimination-how-hobby-lobby-enables-a-rfra-affirmative-defense-against-title-viis-protections-for-lgbt-people-in-the-workplace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/2017\/07\/13\/employment-discrimination-how-hobby-lobby-enables-a-rfra-affirmative-defense-against-title-viis-protections-for-lgbt-people-in-the-workplace\/","title":{"rendered":"Employment Discrimination: How Hobby Lobby Enables a RFRA Affirmative Defense Against Title VII\u2019s Protections for LGBT People in the Workplace"},"content":{"rendered":"

The author, Diana Beltr\u00e9 Acevedo, analyzes how the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.<\/em> has created the appropriate climate for defendants with \u201csincerely held religious beliefs\u201d to apply the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993<\/em> (RFRA) as an affirmative defense against Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, especially in suits by LGBT workers. First the author gives a brief historical background of the most important cases regarding religious freedom. Then she goes into the decision of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.<\/em> and highlights how Justice Ginsburg\u2019s dissent of how the Court\u2019s interpretation would open the door for other kinds of discrimination by commercial enterprises (such as racial and\/or sexual orientation discrimination) has become a reality. As an example of this, the author discusses EEOC v. R.G & G.R Harris Funeral Homes<\/em>, in which the RFRA was understood to exempt the owner, who was a believer, from complying with Title VII\u2019s provisions and case law, consequently depriving a transgender plaintiff of its protections. As a conclusion, the author emphasizes how the difficulty for LGBT plaintiffs is exacerbated when exemptions to anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII are considered. As for Puerto Rico, she states that RFRA\u2019s applicability could potentially render Act 22 useless for LGBT plaintiffs who are discriminated by employers with religiously based objections to homosexuality or transgender persons.<\/p>\n

La autora, Diana Beltr\u00e9 Acevedo, analiza como la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en la decisi\u00f3n Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.<\/em> ha creado el clima apropiado para que los patronos demandados con \u201csincerely held religious beliefs\u201d apliquen el Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993<\/em> (RFRA) como una defensa afirmativa en contra del T\u00edtulo VII de la Ley de derechos civiles, especialmente en casos de personas LGBT. Primero, la autora provee el contexto hist\u00f3rico de los casos m\u00e1s importantes sobre libertad religiosa. Luego discute la decisi\u00f3n de Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.<\/em> y destaca como la opini\u00f3n disidente de la Jueza Ginsburg y la interpretaci\u00f3n de la Corte abrir\u00eda la puerta para otro tipo de discrimen por los patronos (como discrimen racial o por orientaci\u00f3n sexual). Como ejemplo de esto, la autora discute EEOC v. R.G & G.R Harris Funeral Homes<\/em>, en el que se entendi\u00f3 que RFRA exim\u00eda al patrono, quien era un creyente, de cumplir con las disposiciones y la jurisprudencia del T\u00edtulo VII, privando a las personas transg\u00e9nero de sus protecciones. Como concusi\u00f3n, la autora enfatiza como las dificultades de las personas LGBT se exacerban con las excepciones a estatutos anti-discriminatorios como el T\u00edtulo VII. En cuanto a Puerto Rico, ella afirma que la aplicaci\u00f3n de RFRA podr\u00eda hacer que la Ley 22 sea in\u00fatil para los demandantes LGBT discriminados por los patronos que objetan por razones religiosas la homosexualidad o las personas transg\u00e9nero.<\/p>\n

Cita:<\/strong> Diana Beltr\u00e9 Acevedo, Employment Discrimination: How Hobby Lobby Enables a RFRA Affirmative Defense Against Title VII\u2019s Protections for LGBT People in the Workplace<\/em>, 86 Rev. Jur. UPR 1191 (2017).<\/p>\n

Enlace PDF (+)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Diana Beltr\u00e9 Acevedo, 86 Rev. Jur. UPR 1191 (2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[89],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-2985","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-rev86-num4"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}