Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
480 U.S. 136 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to an employee discharged for refusing to work on her Sabbath for sincerely held religious reasons violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, even if the religious beliefs were adopted after the employee began working.
Facts:
- In October 1981, Lawton and Company, a Florida jeweler, hired Paula Hobbie.
- After working for Lawton for approximately two and a half years, Hobbie was baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church in April 1984.
- Hobbie informed her supervisor that her sincerely held religious beliefs prevented her from working from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.
- Initially, Hobbie's supervisor accommodated her by scheduling her for other shifts and covering her Sabbath hours.
- In June 1984, the general manager of Lawton learned of the arrangement and informed Hobbie that she must either work her scheduled shifts, including her Sabbath, or resign.
- When Hobbie refused to either work her Sabbath or resign, Lawton discharged her.
Procedural Posture:
- Paula Hobbie filed a claim for unemployment compensation with the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security.
- A claims examiner for the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation denied Hobbie’s claim.
- Hobbie appealed to the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, which affirmed the denial, finding her refusal to work constituted 'misconduct connected with her work.'
- Hobbie then sought review in the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the Appeals Commission's order.
- Hobbie appealed the decision of the Florida appellate court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's denial of unemployment benefits to an employee who was discharged for refusing to work on her Sabbath, due to sincerely held religious beliefs adopted after beginning employment, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Florida's refusal to award unemployment benefits violates the Free Exercise Clause. Denying an important government benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief places a substantial and unconstitutional burden on the employee's religious freedom. The court's precedents in Sherbert v. Verner and Thomas v. Review Bd. control this case, as there is no meaningful distinction between the employees' situations. The state's action forces the employee to choose between fidelity to her religious beliefs and forfeiting benefits, which is a form of coercion that requires a compelling state interest to justify. The court rejected the state's argument that Hobbie was the 'agent of change' because she converted after being hired, stating that the timing of a conversion is immaterial to the protection of free exercise rights. Granting benefits in this situation is a permissible accommodation of religion and does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Concurring - Justice Powell
The Court correctly concluded that this case is controlled by the precedents of Sherbert v. Verner and Thomas v. Review Bd., which require applying strict scrutiny. However, the majority's opinion was wrong to reach out and reject the reasoning of Bowen v. Roy in its entirety, as that was unnecessary dictum. The proper and more limited approach would have been to simply apply the established precedent from Sherbert and Thomas, as Roy was clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
This case is controlled by Sherbert and Thomas. By characterizing Hobbie's religiously motivated choice as 'misconduct,' Florida's law regards her religious claims less favorably than other claims. In such circumstances, granting unemployment benefits is necessary to protect religious observers from unequal treatment and ensure neutrality toward religion.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
The Chief Justice stated that he adhered to the views he expressed in his dissent in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div. and would therefore affirm the lower court's decision denying benefits.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the precedent established in Sherbert v. Verner, extending its protections to individuals who convert to a religion after commencing employment. It explicitly rejects any 'agent of change' distinction, making it clear that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious converts and longtime adherents equally in the context of unemployment benefits. By doing so, the Court prevents states from penalizing employees for religious conversions and reinforces that the critical inquiry is the burden on religious exercise, not the timing of one's adoption of faith. This holding significantly strengthens protections for religious freedom in the workplace against indirect burdens imposed by state benefit schemes.
