Beadle v.City of Tampa
Supreme Court of the United States (1994)

Founded 73 years ago, Agudath Israel of America is a national Orthodox Jewish organization with a deep and abiding interest in the laws that protect religiously-observant Americans in the workplace, and in the particular application of those laws to the rights of Sabbath-observers. Sabbath observance is a fundamental tenet of the Jewish faith, and Orthodox Jews adhere strictly to the biblical proscriptions that forbid them to work on the Sabbath day. As an advocate for its constituents' rights and interests, Agudath Israel has sought to safeguard and strengthen the scope of federal, state and local laws that protect Sabbath-observers on the job. As a community liaison, Agudath Israel occasionally mediates in workplace disputes and in efforts to reach agreement on job schedules and on other arrangements that -- as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- "reasonably accommodate" the religious requirements of Sabbath observers without causing "undue hardship" to the commercial interests of their employers.

Agudath Israel is of the view that Title VII protections for religious practitioners, as interpreted by the courts, have proven inadequate. Because this case would afford the Court an opportunity to clarify and strengthen an employer's obligations under Title VII, Agudath Israel, and the constituency it represents, have an important stake in the petition for certiorari.

Agudath Israel believes that it would bring to this case a perspective not currently before the Court. Its proposed amicus curiae brief advances an argument that extends beyond those offered in petitioner's brief -- i.e., that the phrase "undue hardship" in Title VII should be accorded the same meaning it has under the Americans with Disabilities Act, excusing an employer from reasonable accommodation only upon a showing of "significant difficulty or expense." Agudath Israel believes there are constitutional dimensions to this argument, as detailed in its proposed amicus brief, and that they deserve full consideration by this Court.

Counsel for petitioner has responded affirmatively to Agudath Israel's request for consent to file an amicus brief. Counsel for respondent, however, has withheld such consent, indicating to counsel for Agudath Israel in a telephone conversation on May 17, 1995 that he neither consents nor objects to Agudath Israel's filing of an amicus brief. Hence the need for this motion.

For the reasons stated above, Agudath Israel respectfully urges the Court to grant this motion for leave to file the accompanying brief amicus curiae in support of the petitioner.