[D]efendants moved for dismissal... Consequently, there is no record.... [W]e do not have a record of the DOC's actual grooming policy, the rationale for that policy, whether the DOC has granted accommodations to others from its grooming policy, whether the DOC engaged in a "bona fide effort" to accommodate plaintiff, and whether an accommodation to plaintiff would impose an "undue hardship" on the DOC.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Appeals Court Remands Employment Discrimination Claim Against NJ Corrections Department
In Roseus v. State of New Jersey, (NJ App., Sept. 10, 2018), a New Jersey state appeals court remanded to the trial court a suit in which plaintiff claimed the Department of Corrections (DOC) violated the state's Law Against Discrimination when it dismissed him from a training program for corrections officers. DOC refused to grant Marven Roseus, who for religious reasons does not shave his face or head, a religious accommodation to depart from the Department's grooming rules. The appeals court held: