Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
(1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may not deny unemployment compensation to an individual who quits their job for sincere religious reasons, as doing so imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest that cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
Facts:
- Eddie C. Thomas, a Jehovah's Witness, was initially employed at Blaw-Knox Foundry in a department that fabricated sheet steel.
- Approximately one year later, that department closed, and Blaw-Knox transferred Thomas to a department that produced turrets for military tanks.
- Thomas believed that his religion forbade him from participating in the production of armaments.
- After discovering that all other departments at the foundry were also engaged in weapons production, Thomas asked for a layoff.
- When his request for a layoff was denied, Thomas quit his job, stating that he could not work on weapons without violating his religious principles.
- A fellow Jehovah's Witness and coworker advised Thomas that working on weapons was not 'unscriptural,' but Thomas concluded that his own personal beliefs were stricter and required him to cease the work.
Procedural Posture:
- Eddie Thomas applied for unemployment benefits with the Indiana Employment Security Division after quitting his job.
- A hearing referee for the Division denied his claim, finding he had quit without 'good cause in connection with the work.'
- The Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division affirmed the referee's decision.
- Thomas sought judicial review, and the Indiana Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the Board's decision, holding the state's action violated Thomas's First Amendment rights.
- The Review Board appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of Indiana vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the denial of benefits.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Thomas's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 compensation benefits to an individual who terminated his employment for reasons based on a sincerely held religious belief violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. A state's denial of unemployment benefits to an individual who terminates employment for sincere religious reasons violates the Free Exercise Clause. Where a state conditions the receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, it places substantial pressure on an adherent to violate their beliefs, which is a burden on religion. While not every burden is unconstitutional, the state must justify it by demonstrating that it is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest. Here, Indiana's asserted interests in avoiding widespread unemployment from 'personal' quits and preventing employers from probing into applicants' religious beliefs were not sufficiently compelling to justify the burden on Thomas's religious liberty. The court also held that a belief does not need to be shared by all members of a religion to be protected, and it is not the role of courts to dissect the consistency or logic of an individual's sincere religious convictions.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The state's denial of benefits does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The Indiana unemployment law is a neutral law of general applicability that does not target religious belief; it merely makes the practice of Thomas's religion more expensive, which is only an indirect burden. The Free Exercise Clause does not require a state to conform its secular welfare statutes to the religious conscience of every individual. Furthermore, the majority's decision creates an Establishment Clause problem by requiring the state to provide direct financial assistance solely on the basis of religious belief, which improperly entangles the state in religious matters by forcing it to inquire into the sincerity of claimants' beliefs.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and expands the precedent set in Sherbert v. Verner, solidifying the application of strict scrutiny to state laws that indirectly burden the free exercise of religion in the context of unemployment benefits. The Court clarified that the Free Exercise Clause protects an individual's sincere personal religious beliefs, even if they are inconsistent with the views of co-religionists or are not articulated with perfect clarity. This holding lowers the barrier for claimants, instructing courts to avoid acting as 'arbiters of scriptural interpretation' and instead to focus on the sincerity of the belief and the substantiality of the burden. The case reinforces the principle that a state needs a compelling interest, not merely a rational one, to justify infringing on these fundamental rights.
