![]() First, the district court found that the law was both religion-neutral and generally applicable and that it did not impermissibly target religious conduct. The district court agreed with the state and dismissed all of Evergreen’s claims. The state also argued that the statute was generally applicable to all employers, including religious employers. The state argued that in passing the Boss Bill, it aimed to protect its citizens’ right to privacy in the confidentiality of their medical information and autonomy in decisions related to their body, health, and family planning. The state moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that the Boss Bill was a constitutional exercise of its police power in furtherance of the state’s interest in nondiscrimination. Evergreen sought a declaration that the Boss Bill was unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the Boss Bill against Evergreen.Īt the district court level, Evergreen argued that the statute was unconstitutional, arguing that the statute violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of expressive association, freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and its Fourteenth Amendment right to due process due to vagueness. In January 2020, Evergreen filed a complaint in the Northern District of New York for declaratory and injunctive relief, naming state officials as defendants in their official capacities. Based on its moral and religious objections to abortion, Evergreen hires only employees who can credibly communicate to patients its “opposition to abortion and to sexual relationships outside of marriage and related use of potentially abortifacient contraception.” Evergreen asks each prospective employee whether they are pro-choice or pro-life and it will not consider for employment an applicant who expresses support for abortion. ![]() These centers discourage abortion and provide pregnant women with ultrasounds, counseling, and information on adoption. The statute also creates a private right of action an employee is thus able to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against an employer alleged to have violated the provisions of the Boss Bill and allows a prevailing employee to seek damages, including attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, reinstatement and/or liquidated damages.Įvergreen Association, Inc., operating as Expectant Mother Care and EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Center is a New York based non-profit organization that operates a network of pregnancy crisis centers. The Commissioner may issue orders to employers directing compliance. The Boss Bill allows for government enforcement and vests the Commissioner of New York’s Department of Labor with the authority to enforce all provisions of the statute. The Boss Bill is applicable to all employers and does not contain an express exemption for religious employers or for small employers who have objections to abortion. discriminate nor take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of or on the basis of the employee’s or dependent’s reproductive health decision making.” The Boss Bill additionally prohibits an employer from accessing an employee’s personal information regarding the employee’s reproductive health decision making. The law provides that “n employer shall not. The New York legislature enacted Senate Bill S660, popularly referred to as the “Boss Bill”, and codified as New York Labor Law 203-e on November 8, 2019. The Second Circuit held that the law unconstitutionally interferes with the Evergreen’s expressive association rights and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration. New York Labor Law 203-e, popularly known as the “Boss Bill”, prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions against employees based on their reproductive health decisions. ![]() Hochul, holding that Evergreen Association, Inc., a non-profit organization can challenge New York state officials in a suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of New York Labor Law 203-e. Seyfarth Synopsis: On February 27 th, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) issued its decision in Slattery v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |