Business
As a church employer in your religion, requiring that the building engineer be of the same religion is justified on the basis of Section 207 of the Civil Rights Act prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. Craig (2008) stated that bona fide occupational qualifications or BFOQ refers to employment qualifications that employers are allowed by law to take into consideration in the course of making business judgments in hiring and selection of employees. The employers take into consideration that such qualification is closely related to the fundamental function of the job or fundamental in the operation of the business. These qualifications shall cover race, gender, age, origin and religion as long as they fall within the definition of bona fide occupational qualifications. In addition, BFOQ is a valid defense of employers and an exception to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Craig, 2008).
In the case of Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day v. Amos 483, the issue that was resolved by the Supreme Court is whether or not application of Section 702 exemption to the secular nonprofit activities of religious organizations is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in that there was no violation of the Establishment Clause. What the Establishment Clause forbids is for the government to utilize mechanisms of the state for the promotion of a particular religion. Under Section 702, there should be a three-part test to be conducted on the basis of the decision held in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman to determine if such state action is contrary to the Establishment Clause. In order to qualify as a violation, the first criterion is that there must be a showing that a particular state action advances a “secular legislative purpose”. The Court held that Section 702 has complied with such criterion for being neutral by not meddling with the religious affairs and in the decision-making process. The second criterion states that the state action must not promote or inhibit a specific religion. The Court held that Section 702 did not meet such requirement since the provision has the effect of promoting the religion through its own influence and activities. Applying such requirement in this case, it was shown that the government has given the church to promote its own religion but not direct intervention was made. The last requirement is that such state action should not mingle the church and state. In this case, it was held that state allowed the religious organizations to hire and recruit employees whom they preferred which made the state less entangled in the promotion of a particular religion.
Thus, in the given problem, an employer who requires that the building engineer be of the same religion does not violate the First Amendment. Such as of the employer is part of the BFOQ and did not intend to promote a secular legislative purpose. In addition, Section 702 passed a three-part test as ruled in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, and did not violate the Establishment Clause under the Constitution.
References
Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2009). Employment law for business, 6th ed.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day v. Amos 483 \ U.S. 327 (1987)
Craig, C.E. (2008). Basic Labor and Employment Law for Paralegals. New York: Aspen
Publishers.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
