Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida
 | |
| Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida | |
| Reference: 480 U.S. 136 | |
| Term: 1987 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: December 10, 1986 Decided: February 25, 1987 | |
| Outcome | |
| Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed | |
| Majority | |
| William Brennan • Byron White • Thurgood Marshall • Harry Blackmun • Sandra Day O'Connor • Antonin Scalia | |
| Concurring | |
| John Stevens • Lewis Powell | |
| Dissenting | |
| William Rehnquist | |
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida was a case decided on February 25, 1987, by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Florida's denial of unemployment insurance benefits to claimant Paula Hobbie under the Florida Employment Security Act violated her right to religious expression under the First Amendment. The court ruled that Florida could not deny unemployment insurance benefits to Hobbie after she quit a job that required her to work on Saturday in violation of her religious beliefs.[1][2]
Background
Paula Hobbie worked for a jewelry shop called Lawton and Company. Hobbie joined the Seventh Day Adventist church and was fired after informing her employer that she could not work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Hobbie applied for unemployment insurance benefits through the joint federal-state unemployment insurance program, but Lawton objected to her claim, saying Hobbie’s refusal to work on Saturday because of her religious conversion constituted work-related misconduct.[1][2]
Hobbie claimed the denial of benefits violated her right to free religious exercise under the First Amendment. She filed suit in the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, which upheld the denial of benefits.[1][2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on December 10, 1986. The case was decided on February 25, 1987.[1][2]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 8-1 that Florida's denial of benefits to Hobbie under the Florida Employment Security Act violated her right to religious expression under the First Amendment. Justice William Brennan delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices William Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Antonin Scalia. Justices John Stevens and Lewis Powell delivered separate concurring opinions. Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered a dissenting opinion.[1][2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice William Brennan argued that Florida's denial of benefits to Hobbie under the Florida Employment Security Act violated her right to religious expression under the First Amendment. Burger cited the precedent set in Sherbert v. Verner and Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, arguing in part that the state’s denial of unemployment benefits to Hobbie following her religious conversion amounted to unlawful coercion by attempting to pressure Hobbie to change her behavior:[2]
| “ | In effect, the Appeals Commission asks us to single out the religious convert for different, less favorable treatment than that given an individual whose adherence to his or her faith precedes employment. We decline to do so. The First Amendment protects the free exercise rights of employees who adopt religious beliefs or convert from one faith to another after they are hired. The timing of Hobbie's conversion is immaterial to our determination that her free exercise rights have been burdened; the salient inquiry under the Free Exercise Clause is the burden involved. In Sherbert, Thomas, and the present case, the employee was forced to choose between fidelity to religious belief and continued employment; the forfeiture of unemployment benefits for choosing the former over the latter brings unlawful coercion to bear on the employee's choice.[3] | ” |
| —Justice William Brennan, majority opinion in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida[2] | ||
Concurring opinions
Justices Lewis Powell and John Stevens concurred in the case, agreeing with the majority that it was correct to refer to the precedent set in Sherbert v. Verner and Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division in reversing the lower court's decision.
Dissenting opinions
Justice William Rehnquist dissented, saying he would affirm the lower court's ruling on the same lines he dissented in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division. Rehnquist argued in Thomas that the majority interpreted the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause too broadly.[2]
See also
- Federalism
- Unemployment insurance
- The Hughes Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- History of the Supreme Court
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Oyez, "Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida," accessed November 8, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Justia, "Hobbie v. Unemplt. Appeals Comm'n, 480 U.S. 136 (1987)," accessed November 8, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||||||||
