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
5 hours ago
- GMA Network
Trump to sign order creating Olympics task force ahead of 2028 games
A drone view of Los Angeles Coliseum, as it was announced it will host the opening ceremonies of the 2028 Olympics along with SoFi Stadium in a dual event, closing ceremony. (REUTERS/Mike Blake) WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Tuesday creating a White House Olympics task force to handle security and other issues related to the 2028 summer Olympic games, an administration official told Reuters. The task force, made up of members from Trump's cabinet and government agencies, will coordinate federal, state and local government work on transportation, the official said. It also will "streamline visa processing and credentialing for foreign athletes, coaches, officials, and media," the official said in an email. The United States will host the Olympics in Los Angeles in three years. Trump, a Republican who lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, has expressed pleasure that his second term will coincide with the Olympics and the World Cup. "During his first term, President Trump was instrumental in securing America's bid to host the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The president considers it a great honor to oversee this global sporting spectacle in his second term," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Monday. Last month organizers of the Los Angeles games released the first look at the Olympic competition schedule. The city had also hosted the Olympics in 1932 and 1984. "The creation of this task force marks an important step forward in our planning efforts and reflects our shared commitment to delivering not just the biggest, but the greatest Games the world has ever seen in the summer of 2028,' Casey Wasserman, the chair and president of LA28, said in a statement. —Reuters
GMA Network
7 hours ago
- GMA Network
House lawmakers support call for oral arguments on VP Sara impeachment
Several members of the House of Representatives on Tuesday supported calls for the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. The calls came as the House of Representatives filed a motion for reconsideration before the SC, asking it to reverse its ruling that the articles of impeachment filed against Duterte were unconstitutional. "I welcome the call for the SC to issue a status quo ante order and call for oral arguments to explain intricate legal issues and ventilate factual incidents that may be clarified for the appreciation of the Honorable Justices," impeachment prosecutor Joel Chua of Manila's 3rd District told GMA Integrated News. Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro, another impeachment prosecutor, agreed, saying the motion for reconsideration must be decided on "with utmost care." "This is a landmark case in impeachment proceedings, thus both parties must be accorded ample opportunity to argue their respective positions. Let us be mindful that these are the very foundations of our democracy: the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land; the impeachment, which is the people's redress against erring and abusive public officials; and ultimately, the integrity of the Highest Tribunal which has the exclusive power to interpret laws," she told GMA Integrated News. Tingog Party-list Representative Jude Acidre reiterated that the issue is not Duterte but how the Supreme Court's ruling will impact future impeachment cases. "I think the position of the House is not merely because it's about the Vice President who's at stake here. Also because I think we have to look at precedent. If we allow this particular ruling to prevail, then it will have serious consequences on the way impeachment trials will be done. And possibly, as far as the House is concerned, if we listen to the Speaker yesterday, we're worried it would infringe on the exclusivity of the right of Congress to initiate impeachment cases," he said in an interview. The legislator said he supports calls for the SC to hold oral arguments on the issue—a call echoed by groups such as 1Sambayan. "Kailangan din natin pag-aralan paano magiging epektibong mekanismo sa pag-e-ensure ng accountability ang impeachment process," Acidre said. (We also need to study how the impeachment process can become an effective mechanism to ensure accountability.) "If the impeachment case is dismissed, then we have practically... it's to the country's loss. Kasi ibig sabihin noon, never natin malalaman at never masasagot ang mga katanungan, matagal na natin hinihingi. Katulad ng kung ginamit ba nang tama ang confidential funds, may pananagutan ba ang vice president tungkol sa kanyang pagbabanta sa buhay ng Pangulo, ng unang ginang at ang Speaker ng House." he added. (It would mean that we would never know and never get answers to the questions that we have long been asking. Such as if the confidential funds were used properly, or is the Vice President liable for the threats she made against the President, the First Lady and the Speaker.) "These are issues that need to be answered. These are issues that affect the very core of our democracy. May naman pupwedeng dahil lang sa teknikalidad ay nabalewala na po ito [It could be that these will be dismissed due to a technicality]," he added. While Acidre said he respects whatever the Senate decides to do with the Articles of Impeachment, he stressed he is still hopeful that the impeachment trial will proceed. When asked if the Supreme Court decision effectively removed the third mode of impeachment, which is to immediately transmit to the Senate the Articles of Impeachment if it is signed by at least a third of all members of the House of Representatives, Acidre replied, "I wouldn't say as far as tinanggal [removed]. Siguro radically change. It makes it difficult for congressmen to exercise that. And I think I agree it requires examining whether it is an example of judicial overreach." Akbayan Representative Perci Cendaña, who recently filed a motion to intervene in the impeachment case at the Supreme Court, stressed the importance of holding oral arguments on the issue. "Napakahalaga yung oral arguments para magkaroon din ng fair day in court itong ating motion for reconsideration. And more than that, napakahalaga na madinig ng taumbayan yung katwiran ng parehong panig at na mapaliwanag ng House of Representatives na yung lahat ng ginawa natin ay in compliance with the Constitution at yung sarili nating House rules," he said in an interview. (It is very important to hold oral arguments so that the motion for reconsideration will have a fair day in court. And more than that, it is very important for the Filipino people to hear the reasonings of both sides and for the House of Representatives to explain why everything we have done is in compliance with the Constitution and our own House rules.) He also called on the Senate not to act in haste on the Articles of Impeachment. "Para silang bibiyahe na jeep. Hindi pa puno, gusto nilang umarangkada. At pag umarangkada sila, ang mangyari, ang maiiwan, yung katotohanan, pananagutan, at yung katarungan," Cendaña said. (It's like they're on a jeep that wants to get going even before it's full. And when they leave early, what gets left behind are the truth, accountability, and justice,) "Sa dulo, ang mahalaga dito, dapat marinig ng taumbayan yung dalawang panig at magkaroon ng fair day in court. Kasi nga, pag nangyari yan, pag dismissed na yan na hindi pa final ang process sa Korte Suprema, talo na naman ang taumbayan," he added. Dinagat Islands Rep Kaka Bag-ao also believes that oral arguments in the Supreme Court on the impeachment will make the issues clearer for the public. "Una-una, dapat maintindihan pa nga ng taumbayqn. And I think the only response to that would be an oral argument in Court na puwedeng mabigyan ng pagkakataon yung mga partido to explain ano talaga ang totoong facts doon sa issue," Bag-ao said in an interview. Bag-ao also believes the Senate Impeachment Court should conduct an impeachment trial. "Yung impeachment trial ay dapat din matuloy at dapat maintindihan ng Senado yan, no? Bukod sa hindi pa tapos yung kaso sa Supreme Court, pangungunahan nila. Kahit pa sabihin nilang sila ang may sole authority, ang kailangan pa rin, ang requirement pa rin ay, anuman ang kanilang response, ay magkaroon ng trial. Gusto natin makita ano ba talagang ebidensya laban kay VP? Ano ba talagang depensa ni VP Sara? Tingin ko dapat mas maintindihan ito ng mga tao," Bag-ao said. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
9 hours ago
- GMA Network
1Sambayan, others ask SC to pause action on Sara impeachment, allow arguments
Political coalition 1Sambayan and others on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue a status quo ante order that will pause the proceedings of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, a day before the Senate is expected to decide whether to abide by the High Court's ruling that barred the trial. The petitioners filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the impeachment cases as well as to admit their motion for reconsideration, where they asked the SC to issue a status quo ante order and to set the case for oral arguments. A status quo order is intended to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the controversy, according to the SC. '[I]t is judicially wise for this Honorable Court to grant a Status Quo Ante Order that prevents the Senate of the Philippines from taking concrete action such as to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment considering the pending constitutional issues that have yet to be resolved by this Honorable Court,' the petitioners said in their 52-page motion. Among the petitioners were retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and retired Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales. Petitioner Howard Calleja, meanwhile, called on the Senate to hold off from deciding on the impeachment due to the pending petition. 'That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate na sana pakinggan muna itong mga issues. Let us thresh out all the issues bago tayo mag desisyon kung idi-dismiss or whatever 'yung gagawin natin,' he said. (That's why, precisely, we are knocking on the Senate, hopefully they will first listen to these issues first. Let us thresh out all the issues before we decide whether to dismiss or whatever action we will take.) Calleja said that the Senate impeachment court should also continue the trial. 'Pero kung hindi nila maisip na gawin 'yun siguro hingin atin kumbaga mag status quo ante muna tayo. Huwag tayong ora-orada na gagawa ng desisyon kasi nga meron pang pending na ito na pwede mag bago,' he said. (But if they don't think of doing that, we will ask for a status quo ante. Let's not rush into making a decision because this is still pending and could change things.) 'Na sana kung gusto nila galangin ang Korte Suprema, galangin din nila ang proseso at sa pag galang ng proseso, eh medyo—sabi ko nga status quo muna. Hinay-hinay kasi ang proseso hindi pa tapos,' he added. (That hopefully, if they want to respect the SC, they should also respect the process, and in respecting the process—like I said, status quo for now. Let's take it slow because the process isn't over yet.) In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. However, the SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. In their MR, the petitioners said that the SC ruling overturned the Francisco Jr. ruling, where the SC previously said that an impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House. The petitioners argued that the fourth impeachment complaint was filed and acted upon before the House adjourned. They argued that the first three complaints cannot be deemed to have attained the status of being 'initiated.' 'It is respectfully emphasized that the Fourth Complaint had already been approved prior to the adjournment of Congress; hence the effectivity of the one-year ban rule upon adjournment does not affect it,' they said. Aside from this, the petitioners argued that the ruling on the reckoning of the one-year ban will lead to grave consequences. 'Such a rule creates a perverse incentive for an impeachable officer to inoculate himself from accountability simply by causing the filing of sham complaints, because whether the Congress acts on them, the mere filing would already trigger and consume the one-year ban, a result inconsistent with the Constitution,' they said. The petitioners also stressed that the first three complaints never reached the House committee. This is the third motion for reconsideration filed with the SC against its ruling. Last week, some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Duterte filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam, where they asked the High Court to declare the fourth impeachment complaint as constitutional. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives on Monday filed its own motion for reconsideration, arguing that it should be allowed to perform its exclusive duty to prosecute an impeachable official, and the Senate's to try the case. — BM, GMA Integrated News
