Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Wisconsin
Freedom to Practice Religion vs. Company Policy
Greetings,
My brother is a truck driver with Schneider. He is a follower of the Wica religious practice. As a part of his practice he uses a sword for some reason. Recently, a company mechanic found the sword in his truck cab, which is where he spends his time on the road. Schneider took the sword and kept it for a few weeks and told him that it was against company policy to have a weapon onboard. He told them that it was for religious practice and that their policy was unconstitutional.
Now, he has been placed on short runs with tight deadlines. He believes that the company is trying to have him incur 3 performance-related violations, after which they can fire him. Due to the short runs, his income is reduced, as he gets paid on per-mile basis.
he believes that if he leaves the company that he would be black-listed by other trucking firms. He perefers to stay and have the company sued for their infringement of his right to practice religion. I told him that I believe that since this is a non-government based company that they are not infringing on a right to practice religion and that the company policy on having a weapon which doubles as a religious instrument takes precedence.
Is this a legitimate case?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Re: Freedom to Practice Religion vs. Company Policy
The employer has a legitimate interest in prohibiting weapons in its trucks. It is not required to change that policy because a weapon may have a dual purpose. The potential harm to the company which is guarded against by the policy outweighs a claimed religious use of the same weapon. It is doubtful that the religion in question is recognized by the law as a legal religious entity. It is not 'freedom of beliefs' which is constitutionally protected, it is freedom of religion.
Re: Freedom to Practice Religion vs. Company Policy
I commend you for your astute legal analysis. You are exactly right -- the First Amendment prevents governmental interference with religious freedom, but does not bar private regulations like the one at issue here. What many people fail to understand is that the First Amendment is not a grant of rights to individuals but rather a limitation on the power of the government. Where the government is not involved, the Amendment is of little help.
(The governmental involvement can be indirect, but I don't think that is likely to be pertinent to your brother's case.)
I read Mr. Aspinwal's response, and he is correct that the First Amendment applies only to religions and not to personal beliefs. My understanding, though, is that Wicca has been widely recognized as a genuine religion by the courts, so the religion - vs. - personal beliefs problem really isn't present here.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
