Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
- What is unemployment insurance?
- Terms and definitions
- Unemployment insurance
- Unemployment insurance fraud
- Unemployment insurance fraud recovery
- Federal unemployment tax
- State unemployment tax
- Employment taxes
- Payroll taxes
- Unemployment tax wage base
- Unemployment Trust Fund
- State Unemployment Trust Funds
- Employment Security Administration Account
- Extended Unemployment Compensation Account
- Federal Unemployment Account
- Indexing unemployment benefits
- Experience rating
- Refusal of work
- Integrity Data Hub
- Unemployment extension
- Work search activity
- Unemployment insurance overpayments
- Court cases
- Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Company
- Meilink v. Unemployment Reserves Commission of State of California
- Sherbert v. Verner
- Nash v. Florida Industrial Commission
- California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java
- Geduldig v. Aiello
- Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory
- New York Telephone Co. v. New York Department of Labor
- Califano v. Westcott
- Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
- United States v. Lee
- Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida
- Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security
- Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith
- Unemployment insurance in the states
- Reform proposals related to unemployment insurance
- Unemployment insurance reform activity in the states
- Index of articles about unemployment insurance
 | |
| Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Securit Div. | |
| Reference: 450 U.S. 707 | |
| Term: 1981 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: October 7, 1980 Decided: April 6, 1981 | |
| Outcome | |
| Indiana Supreme Court reversed | |
| Majority | |
| Warren Burger •Byron White •John Stevens •Lewis Powell •William Brennan •Thurgood Marshall •Potter Stewart | |
| Concurring | |
| Harry Blackmun (in part) | |
| Dissenting | |
| William Rehnquist | |
Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division was a case decided on April 6, 1981, by theUnited States Supreme Court, which ruled that Indiana could not denyunemployment insurance benefits to Eddie Thomas, who quit his job for religious reasons after he was transferred to a department that manufactured weapons. The United States Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Supreme Court and held that the Indiana Employment Security Act, as applied, violated Thomas' right to religious expression under theFirst Amendment.[1][2]
Background
Eddie Thomas was a Jehovah's Witness originally hired to fabricate sheet steel in a roll foundry for multiple industrial uses. The foundry was closed, and Thomas was transferred to a department that manufactured military tank turrets. All other departments to which Thomas could have requested transfer also directly manufactured weapons. Thomas requested to be laid off, and when his employer denied the request, he quit and applied forunemployment insurance benefits. Thomas said directly participating in the manufacturing of weapons violated his religious beliefs.[1][2]
The Indiana Employment Security Division denied his application for unemployment benefits, alleging Thomas did not quit for good cause. The division's review board upheld the initial denial of benefits. Thomas filed suit in the Indiana Court of Appeals, which reversed the review board, holding the definition ofgood cause unduly hindered Thomas' right to the free exercise of religion under theFirst Amendment. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling, denying Thomas benefits.[1][2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on October 7, 1980. The case was decided on April 6, 1981.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 8-1 that Indiana's denial of benefits to Thomas under the Indiana Employment Security Act violated his right to religious expression under theFirst Amendment. Chief JusticeWarren Burger delivered the opinion of the court, joined byByron White,John Stevens,Lewis Powell,William Brennan,Thurgood Marshall, andPotter Stewart. JusticeHarry Blackmun filed an opinion concurring in part and in the result. JusticeWilliam Rehnquist delivered a dissenting opinion.[3][1]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
JusticeWarren Burger, writing for the court, argued that Indiana's denial of benefits to Thomas under the Indiana Employment Security Act violated his right to religious expression under the First Amendment. Burger cited the precedent set inSherbert v. Verner and said the state's interest was not sufficiently compelling to justify the denial of benefits:[1]
| “ | Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denied such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial. ...
| ” |
| —JusticeWarren Burger, majority opinion inThomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Div.[1] | ||
Concurring opinions
JusticeHarry Blackmun concurred in parts I, II, and III, and in the result of the opinion.[1]
Dissenting opinions
JusticeWilliam Rehnquist, writing the dissent, said the majority interpreted the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause too broadly. Rehnquist argued for a narrower reading of the clauses, which he said could alleviate tension between them.[1]
| “ | In sum, my difficulty with today's decision is that it reads the Free Exercise Clause too broadly and it fails to squarely acknowledge that such a reading conflicts with many of our Establishment Clause cases. As such, the decision simply exacerbates the "tension" between the two Clauses. If the Court were to construe the Free Exercise Clause as it did in Braunfeld and the Establishment Clause as JUSTICE STEWART did in Schempp, the circumstances in which there would be a conflict between the two Clauses would be few and far between. Although I heartily agree with the Court's tacit abandonment of much of our rhetoric about the Establishment Clause, I regret that the Court cannot see its way clear to restore what was surely intended to have been a greater degree of flexibility to the Federal and State Governments in legislating consistently with the Free Exercise Clause. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Indiana Supreme Court.[4] | ” |
| —JusticeWilliam Rehnquist, dissenting opinion inThomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Div.[1] | ||
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
- ↑1.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.9Justia, "Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)," accessed November 8, 2021
- ↑2.02.12.2Cornell Law School, "Eddie C. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al.," accessed August 27, 2021
- ↑Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedoyez - ↑4.04.1Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||||||||
