Court Says Undue Hardship In Accommodating Refusal To Handle Domestic Partnerships Must Go To Jury

In Slater v. Douglas County, (D OR, Sept. 24, 2010), an Oregon federal district court refused to grant either plaintiff's or defendant's motions for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, sending to a jury trial the question of whether accommodating a county employee's religious beliefs would have posed an undue hardship under state or federal employment discrimination laws.  The suit was brought by a former employee of the Douglas County, Oregon County Clerk's Office.  Plaintiff Kathy Slater was fired from her position after she objected to being involved in registering domestic partnerships under Oregon's Domestic Partnership Law. Doing so would have violated her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The court concluded that the county's offer to help Slater transfer to a position in another county department if one became available was an insufficient effort at accommodation of her religious beliefs. However it was unable to determine the question of undue hardship on the record before it. The court did reject the county's argument that accommodating Slater's religious beliefs would have violated the Establishment Clause because the county would have been supporting the employee's religious beliefs. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy via Alliance Alert for the lead.]