FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W143839268> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W143839268 startingPage "481" @default.
• W143839268 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION A religious organization enters a contract with a builder to construct a new facility and breaches the contract; a student at a private, religiously-affiliated school slips on a patch of ice and is seriously injured because of the school maintenance crew's negligence. The builder and the student are aggrieved by the actions of the respective religious institutions. Consequently, they seek to resolve their disputes through the judicial system, as would any other individual with a potential legal claim. Although the adjudicative process would involve church and state, the First Amendment Religion Clauses would not likely be implicated, because the application of contract and tort law to these secular activities does not inhibit religious exercise or involve government in religious activities. In contrast to the above contract and tort examples, consider the relationship between church and state that would ensue from adjudicating a tort claim filed by a parishioner whose priest's marriage counseling progressed to sexual misconduct,1 or an employment discrimination claim by a female nun who was allegedly denied tenure as a professor of canonical law because of her gender.2 These legal disputes do not involve mere application of a secular standard to secular conduct.3 Rather, adjudicating claims that implicate matters of church doctrine or governance necessitates a certain degree of intrusion into constitutionally significant religious matters. As long as church and state have coexisted, courts have struggled with the question of how to treat disputes involving religious institutions. On the one hand, religious institutions are like corporations and other organizations in that they are comprised of individuals but act as unified entities. Clearly, the state regulates corporations and non-religious organizations, so by analogy, religious institutions should not be immune from state regulation.4 On the other hand, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished religion from other group activities by affording religious groups special protections from state interference in the First Amendment's Religion Clauses.5 This protection from state regulation is not without limit, however, especially when religious organizations' interests collide with those of individuals whom the state has a regulatory interest in protecting. Considering this conflict of interests, how courts should respond when individuals assert that a religious institution has violated their legal rights is a complicated issue, especially in the context of an increasing amount of state regulation. The issue varies in complexity, however, depending on the type of legal dispute at hand. Intuitively, certain bodies of law are less controversial than others in their application to religious institutions. For example, application of contract law to a breach of contract issue or tort law to a negligence claim does not raise substantial issues of state intrusion into important church matters.6 When the applicable body of law intrudes more extensively into religious governance or doctrine, however, courts struggle to determine the extent to which churches should comply. One such troublesome area of law is employment discrimination. This Note seeks to define the proper role of courts in mediating discrimination-based employment disputes involving religious institutions.7 Specifically, this Note argues that instead of focusing on whether an employment dispute implicates a ministerial relationship,8 as courts have done by analyzing the primary duties of the plaintiff in order to determine application of the constitutional ministerial exception, justiciability should be based on whether adjudication of the dispute would actually implicate religious doctrine or practice. Part II of this Note examines the statutory framework of Title VII and the extent to which Title VII's language facially applies to employment disputes involving religious employers. …" @default.
• W143839268 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W143839268 creator A5088260817 @default.
• W143839268 date "2001-03-01" @default.
• W143839268 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W143839268 title "Employment Discrimination by Religious Institutions: Limiting the Sanctuary of the Constitutional Ministerial Exception to Religion-Based Employment Decisions" @default.
• W143839268 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W143839268 type Work @default.
• W143839268 sameAs 143839268 @default.
• W143839268 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W143839268 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W143839268 hasAuthorship W143839268A5088260817 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C104636517 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C2778323131 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C2780587575 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C2994536602 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W143839268 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C104636517 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C11413529 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C144024400 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C17744445 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C199539241 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C200635333 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C2776211767 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C2777834853 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C2778272461 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C2778323131 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C2780587575 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C2994536602 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C41008148 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C48103436 @default.
• W143839268 hasConceptScore W143839268C97460637 @default.
• W143839268 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W143839268 hasLocation W1438392681 @default.
• W143839268 hasOpenAccess W143839268 @default.
• W143839268 hasPrimaryLocation W1438392681 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W1265247841 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W1502905394 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W1516555441 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W1518693588 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W1524915320 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W1588696450 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W163564654 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W2264621186 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W2273542218 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W2337529531 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W2767544226 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W2899658956 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W3019164618 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W3122307738 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W3123607643 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W3124848897 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W3125165960 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W3126092806 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W40971748 @default.
• W143839268 hasRelatedWork W3124103869 @default.
• W143839268 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W143839268 isParatext "false" @default.
• W143839268 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W143839268 magId "143839268" @default.
• W143839268 workType "article" @default.