US to allow federal workers to promote religion in workplaces
Agency employees may seek to "persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views" in the office, wrote Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. government's human resources agency.
Supervisors can attempt to recruit their employees to their religion, so long as the efforts aren't 'harassing in nature,' according to Kupor's statement. Agencies can't discipline their employees for declining to talk to their coworkers about their religious views.
The statement represents the latest effort of the six-month-old Republican Trump administration to expand the role of religion in the federal workplace.
Courts have long held that employers cannot suppress all religious expression in the workplace, but can lawfully curb conduct that is disruptive or imposes an undue hardship as long as it applies equally to members of any religion.
The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects individuals' rights to practice their religion while preventing the government from favoring one religion or another or religion in general.
OPM in mid-July said agency workers can get permission to work from home or adjust their hours to accommodate religious prayers, after previously demanding that workers report to offices fulltime.
The new statement cites President Donald Trump's February executive order calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government."
That order directs cabinet secretaries to identify federal actions hostile to Christians. Trump has embraced the conservative Christian world view and promoted policies that speak to concerns that their religious liberty is under attack.
Federal employees can also set up prayer groups in the workplace, so long as they don't meet during work hours, Kupor's statement said.
The memo references Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that prohibits workplace discrimination based on a person's religion or religious practices.
Kupor in the memo said that means the law requires employers to allow workers to proselytize, organize prayer groups on non-working time, and display religious icons.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces Title VII, has said that proselytizing in the workplace can amount to unlawful religious harassment if it is unwelcome and is so severe or pervasive that it creates a hostile or abusive work environment.
"A consensual conversation about religious views, even if quite spirited, does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome," the agency said in a 2008 guidance document.
Kupor's memo is not legally binding, and any court that reviews it could disagree about the scope of Title VII's protections. But the memo could be difficult to challenge directly in court, as judges in many past cases have said they lack the power to review internal agency documents. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
3 hours ago
- GMA Network
US judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
US President Donald Trump holds a "Foreign Trade Barriers" document as he delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/ Carlos Barria/ File photo US appeals court judges sharply questioned on Thursday whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The arguments—one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all US trading partners—mark the first test before a US appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority. — Reuters
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC decision on impeach rap makes accountability 'almost impossible' —Ex-SC Justice Azcuna
"The new rules of the Supreme Court in its add a plethora of effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure," said ex-SC Justice Adolf Azcuna. (File photo) The Supreme Court (SC) decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional makes the accountability procedure for public officials impossible to carry out, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said. "The new rules of the Supreme Court in its decision, unless reconsidered, would add a plethora of requirements ranging from prior notice and hearing, to attaching the evidence, to requiring proof that the Representatives read and understood the charges and the supporting evidence. All these will effectively render it almost impossible to carry out the intended accountability procedure," he said in a social media post. "Furthermore, if allowed to stand, it will to my mind effectively amend —and, God forbid, derail— the Constitution which even the Supreme Court has no power to do," added Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution. On July 25, the high court released a decision declaring the impeachment complaint against Duterte unconstitutional. It ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The SC said the first three impeachment complaints against Duterte were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint. Azcuna said, "the principal casualty" of the SC ruling "applying new rules on impeachment is the principle of accountability." "As most impartial observers agree, the Supreme Court's newly pronounced definition of 'initiate,' contrary to its own prevailing definition, would not only be unfair if applied retroactively, but would even as applied prospectively, unduly constrain the House of Representatives in the exercise of its exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,' Azcuna added, referring to Article 11, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution. According to the former magistrate, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have "constituent powers." He referred to this as the House's power to initiate all impeachment cases and the Senate's power to try and decide the same. "The cardinal rule in regard to constituent powers is that where the Constitution puts it, there it should be." "The Supreme Court cannot be to craft the rules to enforce Article XI of the Constitution. The reason for this is because the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one's own case," Azcuna said. Azcuna said the Vice President's right to due process was not violated by the House in filing the impeachment complaint because the official was not deprived of life, liberty or property as stated in the Bill of Rights. 'Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules in all phases of impeachment? None,' he said. 'Public office is a public trust. It is not a property owned by the occupant. The principles of due process therefore do not strictly apply to protect its occupants from scrutiny and possible removal,' he added. The House is set to appeal the SC ruling, arguing that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints is not considered as initiation as provided under two previous Supreme Court rulings in the Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. House cases. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
10 hours ago
- GMA Network
4 senators sign reso on how Senate should proceed after SC ruling on impeachment
Senate Deputy Minority Leader Risa Hontiveros said Thursday a draft resolution is being circulated containing former justices' advice on how the Senate should proceed following the Supreme Court decision declaring the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional. Hontiveros said that a total of four senators, including her, have signed the resolution as of Monday. She is hopeful that more senators will be signing the document. 'Mayroong draft resolution, hindi joint resolution, pero resolution na tinatrabaho ng ilang mga senador kasama po ako,' she said in a press conference. (There's a draft resolution, not a joint resolution, but a resolution that some senators, including me, are working on.) 'Draft pa rin siya sa ngayon eh, pero nagsa-cite po siya ng mga references sa ilang mga dating justices na nagbibigay ng payo, ilang mga gabay kung paano pwedeng mag-move forward,' she added. (It's still a draft right now, but it is referenced to some former justices who gave advice and guidelines on how we should move forward.) Hontiveros said that this resolution will be used by some senators during the plenary session on August 6—-the date set by the upper chamber to discuss and decide on the SC decision, as announced by Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero. The Senate President earlier shared his personal opinion on the matter, saying that the SC decision must be followed 'otherwise, [there] will have a constitutional crisis, and our neighboring countries and other people might view us as a banana republic where we only follow what we want.' For her part, Hontiveros believes that the impeachment trial should still push through despite the SC ruling unanimously that the articles of impeachment are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI Section 3 paragraph 5 of the Constitution. 'I'm always hopeful, lalo na sa ganitong mga pinaka-importanteng mga proseso na iniaatas sa Senado na may partikular na obligasyon,' she said. (I'm always hopeful, especially in these important processes that are being tasked to the Senate.) She also reiterated that she thinks that the impeachment court is still convened and will continue to be until evidence is presented in each article of impeachment. Hontiveros also said that it would be 'premature' if the Senate would vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment case of Duterte if not a piece of evidence has been presented yet. Asked if she will comply with the SC decision or not, the lady senator said, 'Ang disposition ko…ay maghanap ng pagbabalanse o harmonization sa pagitan ng pag-respeto sa Korte Suprema, pagtaguyod sa mga responsibilidad namin bilang Senado, at pagtupad sa aming mga obligasyon sa ating mga mamamayan na nag-eexpect at tamang nag-eexpect sa amin ng pagtaguyod din sa accountability ng mga public officials.' (My disposition is to find a balance or harmonization between respecting the Supreme Court, upholding our responsibilities in the Senate, and fulfilling our obligations to our citizens who rightly expect us to also uphold the accountability of public officials.) The House of Representatives is currently preparing to file a motion for reconsideration of the SC decision to void the impeachment of Duterte, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. The SC decision is immediately executory but a motion for reconsideration may be filed. The high court had also emphasized that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her, but any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026. Escudero, for his part, said that he has not yet seen the draft resolution, but emphasized that it has to be filed for the body's consideration. 'But with or without any such resolution, we already agreed in caucus to fix a date certain (Aug 6) to debate and act on this issue of impeachment in light of the recent SC decision,' the Senate President said. —AOL, GMA Integrated News
