Employment law is one of the most important areas of federal law and policy.
It is the cornerstone of the federal workplace, protecting both employers and employees.
But it has been complicated by a number of factors, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the 2016 federal budget, and a spate of recent Supreme Court decisions.
A little-known employment law provision in the 2010 Workforce Investment Act that protects religious employers, or religious institutions, from workplace discrimination has led to controversy in the past.
The provision, known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), was passed in 2009, and became law in 2014.
It was aimed at protecting religious businesses from being forced to offer contraception to their employees.
The Supreme Court ruled that the law was not religious discrimination, and that it was not covered by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits discrimination based on religious beliefs.
The provision has faced a number more legal challenges over the years, and the federal government has defended it by saying that it is a necessary safeguard against workplace discrimination.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which passed the Senate in 2013, would have clarified that a religious employer could be sued for discrimination if it discriminated against an employee because of their sexual orientation.
ENDA was opposed by employers who said that the exemption would allow discrimination against them.
On March 13, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court of California ruled that ENDA did not violate RFRA.
The decision was made in response to a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, a national advocacy organization for LGBT people.
In a unanimous decision, the court found that the provision did not conflict with RFRA because it does not require the employer to offer any contraceptive to its employees.
Instead, the government has said that a “coercive” relationship is required, and if a religious employee wants contraception, it is required to do so.
Under ENDA, employers are still prohibited from requiring their employees to take contraceptive care, but employers must provide employees with the same information as their employees, including their birth control choices, and can impose any of the following: an equal opportunity policy or other means to achieve that end; an employee can be terminated if she does not continue to participate in the employer’s religious-based health care plan; an employer can require the employee to take any other contraceptive method; or the employer can make it difficult or impossible for employees to access contraceptives.
The law applies to employers in the private sector, such as hospitals, and employers in state and local governments, such in education and health care.
Since the decision, many companies and organizations have sought exemptions to the RFRA law.
But in May 2018, a federal district judge ruled that businesses can still be sued under the provisions.
As of February 2019, the EEOC had filed lawsuits against several businesses under the RFAA, including a Kentucky-based Christian college, an Indianapolis-based nursing home, and an evangelical college in North Carolina.
However, these lawsuits have all been dismissed, and there are no pending lawsuits that could have a direct impact on ENDA.
Follow us on Twitter @News_Two_Way and on Facebook for more news and analysis.