July 8, 2019

Taking Aim Again at Mandatory Donor Disclosures: Swinging Against New Jersey

Can controversial nonprofits expect government protection from mandatory disclosures of their donor participants?  New Jersey is the latest state to respond “No,” at least when Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations engage in lobbying or other politically related activity. Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a Section 501(c)(4) organization has asserted “Yes,” challenging this so-called “dark money” reporting and donor disclosure law as a First Amendment violation. AFP’s challenge follows on the heels of its valiant (but thus far defeated) effort against California’s more narrow donor disclosure law. Balancing our nation’s constitutional history regarding freedom of speech, association and expression rights, and related privacy interests against New Jersey’s onerous donor disclosure requirements, AFP should win the day with its newly filed injunction action.

Conflict Resolution/Fundraising
May 30, 2019

Clergy as Mandated Reporters, Without Exception?

Amid continuing revelations of child sexual abuse committed by clergy members, some states are rejecting such exception and requiring clergy to report information received through personal confessions – or possibly face criminal fines and jail. With pertaining bills passing in the Illinois House of Representatives and California Senate, this trend reflects sharp tensions between important interests: government deference to religious liberty freedoms and government interests in protecting vulnerable persons from harm. 

Conflict Resolution/Religious Organizations
January 7, 2019

Accommodating Religious Practices at Work: Patterson v. Walgreens

To what extent may an employee’s religious practices be legally protected in the workplace?  When former Walgreens employee Darrell Patterson refused to violate his Saturday Sabbath observance for a mandatory training, Walgreens fired him.  Patterson sued in federal court, lost at the trial and appellate levels, and is now seeking relief from the United States Supreme Court. Within the employment discrimination context, this religious liberty case raises critical legal issues for employers about (a) how much “reasonable accommodation” is required for employees’ religious practices and (b) what amounts an “undue hardship” for employers, in both concrete and theoretical terms.

Conflict Resolution/Employment

Pages