Could this be a way to sue the WTS for disfellowshipping?

by sinis 11 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  sinis

  http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

  An Act
  
  To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon
  the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief
  against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney
  General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public
  facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights,
  to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a
  Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
  
  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
  States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the
  "Civil Rights Act of 1964".
  
  * * *
  
  DEFINITIONS
  
  SEC. 2000e. [Section 701] For the purposes of this subchapter-
  
  (a) The term ``person'' includes one or more individuals, governments,
  governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships,
  associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies,
  joint­stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations,
  trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 [bankruptcy], or
  receivers.
  
  (b) The term ``employer'' means a person engaged in an industry affecting
  commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of
  twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,
  and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the
  United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United
  States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of
  Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as
  defined in section 2102 of title 5 [of the United States Code]), or
  (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization)
  which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26 [the
  Internal Revenue Code of 1954], except that during the first year
  after March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of the Equal Employment
  Opportunity Act of 1972], persons having fewer than twenty­five
  employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers.
  
  (c) The term ``employment agency'' means any person regularly undertaking
  with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to
  procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes
  an agent of such a person.

  Especially if they discriminate against you for other religious beliefs.
• 

  badboy

  EXPLAIN,PLEASE!
• 

  somebodylovesme

  I just wrote out this long analysis/commentary thing, and it didn't post!! grrrr!
  
  
  Well. I'm not rewriting it. But basically, I posted this --
  
  
  I don't know a lot about this, but from what I can find, The Civil Rights Act does not seem to apply to religious groups in terms of religious discrimination:
  
  
  42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-1
  
  
  (a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees of religious entities
  
  
  This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.
  
  That means a church, mosque, temple, etc., may discriminate based on religion, but they still may not discriminate based on race.
  
  
  Also, most Witnesses (save those who are compensated, like those at Bethel) aren't employees of the WTBTS; they are volunteers, who would garner no employment protection.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  SLM
• 

  somebodylovesme

  [duplicate]
• 

  acadian

  Long answer...NO!

  DEFINITIONS
  
  SEC. 2000e. [Section 701] For the purposes of this subchapter-
  
  (a) The term ``person'' includes one or more individuals, governments,
  governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships,
  associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies,
  joint­stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations,
  trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 [bankruptcy], or
  receivers.
  
  (b) The term ``employer'' means a person engaged in an industry affecting
  commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of
  twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,
  and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United
  States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of
  Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as
  defined in section 2102 of title 5 [of the United States Code]), or (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization)
  which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26 [the
  Internal Revenue Code of 1954], except that during the first year
  after March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of the Equal Employment
  Opportunity Act of 1972], persons having fewer than twenty­five
  employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers.
  
  (c) The term ``employment agency'' means any person regularly undertaking
  with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to
  procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes
  an agent of such a person.

  The term "does not include" is the key here, this "Act" does not include "501 (c)" corporations. They are exempt from this "Act" Thats how I read it.... Acadian
• 

  blondie

  acadian, you are correct; the WTS is under 501(c) of the US tax code and is a non-profit corporation and is not subject to this.

  Blondie
• 

  Madame Quixote

  I guess the only way to get around that would be to prove illegitimacy of non-profit status. Good luck with that.
• 

  kwintestal

  The WTS doesn't DF you anymore for voting, they consider you to have disassociated yourself. That's their way around it.

  Kwin
• 

  Arthur

  The point of the matter is this: If the WTS could have been sued for disfellowshipping people (based upon the arguments above) it would have been utilized many years ago by very enterprising attorneys and perhaps, by the ACLU. If there was any way it could be done; an attorney would have found it.
• 

  sinis

  OK, didn't see that it excluded religious orgs. that is too bad. How about this:

  http://www.geocities.com/kathywut/html/legal_precedent.html

  LEGAL PRECEDENTS

  There is one case in particular that has clearly established in case law a right that most of us believe we had all along: the right to simply resign from a church. A second case is important to establish the church's vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations.
  
  GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE Final decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 1989 Marian Guinn, a member of the Church of Christ of Collinsville, OK, hand delivered her resignation to the minister after he told her he was going to excommunicate her for fornication. The minister refused to honor the resignation, went ahead with the 'excommunication' and then announced it from the pulpit. Guinn sued and was awarded $390,000. On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn's resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister did after the minister received Guinn's resignation was tortable. In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned. The court ruled that with her resignation Guinn withdrew her consent to being treated as a member and she withdrew her consent to being subject to church discipline.
  
  Of extra importance is the fact that the court ruled that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church.
  
  In several subsequent court cases the Mormon church has agreed to the principles established in Guinn. They have not even attempted to argue that the principles do not apply to them.
  
  THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)In 1985 the Mormon church 'excommunicated' Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case. The same account says that church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn't want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommuication': the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for 'name removal').
  
  The Hancock case shows that the church is willing to settle out of court when someone sues because the church 'excommunicates' them after they've resigned their membership. There were some defamation issues in the Hancock case that do not apply to most other cases, however.
  
  The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The church began having a process it calls 'name removal'. However, the church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is 'transgressing' should not be allowed to resign, that "name removal should not be used as a substitute for church discipline". If you've paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the church is wrong about that and they can be sued for 'excommunicating' someone who already resigned. At church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to 'discipline' proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are.
  
  NOTE:The sample resignation letter available on this site, through the wording that is used, lets the church know that the person who sent it in knows what his or her rights are. Only rarely do they threaten to 'excommunicate' people who've used that letter. Even in cases of blatant 'transgression' the church usually just lets people go.