Kaite v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court –
November 29, 2017
Claimant had good cause to
refuse employer direction for her to get a fingerprint background check, where
she had a sincerely held religious belief against fingerprinting, in spite of
the fact that she did not belong to an particular church or other religious
organization.
From the opinion:
The
employer bears the burden of proving the existence of the work rule and its
violation, and once the employer establishes that, the burden then shifts to
the claimant to prove that the violation was for good cause. Oliver v. UCBR, 5
A.3d 432, 438 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Where the state denies benefits because of
conduct mandated by a religious belief, putting substantial pressure on a
person to modify behavior and violate that belief, a burden upon religion
exists. Cassatt v. UCBR, 642 A.2d 657, 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). The burden that
a denial places on a claimant’s right to free exercise must be sufficiently
compelling to override the claimant’s First Amendment rights. Id.
................
The
United States Supreme Court has held that a conditioning of the availability of
benefits upon an employee’s willingnessto violate a cardinal principle of her
religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional
liberties. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963).
................
The
Board found that Petitioner’s beliefs were personal and not religious because
the Petitioner, at the time of the hearing, indicated she is not a member of
any formal, recognized or organized religion. (R.R. 37a.) The Board 8 concluded
the beliefs were personal because she kept her religion quiet and only
practiced in her home. Id. The United States Supreme Court rejected the notion
that to claim the protection of the Free Exercise Clause one must be responding
to the commands of a particular religious organization. Frazee v. Illinois
Department of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829, 834 (1989). This Court
cautioned in Monroe that the Court must avoid any predisposition toward
conventional religions so that unfamiliar faiths are not branded as secular
beliefs. Monroe, 535 A.2d at 1225. See also, U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission [EEOC] v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131 (4th Cir.
2017
__._,_.___
