Judge rejects diocese's bid to set aside in vitro verdict

[happyslug]

5. She was NOT denied access to medical treatment, she was fired for using a "banned" procedure.

Last edited Tue Mar 10, 2015, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

This teacher was NOT denied any medical procedure, but was told by her Employer, the Catholic Church, that as a Law Teacher for the Catholic Church if she under went that procedure she could no longer be a teacher for the Catholic Diocese.

This filing is required under the Federal Rules of Appellate procedure before you can file an appeal. The issue of appeal will be is it permitted for employers to forbid female employee to go through a medical procedure that the employer as a Religious organization that for Religious reasons objects to that procedure?

We have a direct First Amendment issue here, can the Federal Government make illegal a for a religious organization to fire someone who violated a tenet of that religion? When it is clear what those rules were for it was in the written contract of employment? The Peyote case will come into play as will Congress's response to that case. The recent Hobby Lobby Decision is another factor in this case.

In simple terms, this will be appealed and the courts will have to rule based on the facts founded by the Jury.


The Hobby Lobby Actual Court Decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

The Peyote Case, "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (No. 88-1213), 1990":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872


Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - 390 U.S. 400 (1968):

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/400/case.html