‘This amendment has not been publicly consulted on and our instinct is that if it were to be it would not receive public support.
This is why we have launched a petition to gauge public reaction.’ The draft marriage law, which was lodged by Chief Minister Ian Gorst and is due to be debated on 30 January, includes provisions known as the ‘quadruple lock’, which guarantees that religious organisations and officials would not have to marry same-sex couples against their wishes.
Mr Shea, who represents 17 member churches, said that businesses needed protection, as they could face prosecution and a £10,000 fine under discrimination laws should they refuse to take part in the ceremony.
Vic Tanner Davy, chief executive of Liberate, said that the amendment did not define religious conviction.
This discussion is for those interested in the law supporting these simple conclusions.
Under Title VII and the ADA, an aggrieved individual generally has 180 days to file a charge with the EEOC following the alleged unlawful practice. Each statutory scheme further provides, however, that when the alleged discriminatory practice occurs in a state or locality that has its own antidiscrimination laws and enforcement agency, and the individual first pursues state or local law remedies, the time to file an EEOC charge is extended to 300 days, or until 30 days after receiving notice that the state agency has terminated its proceedings under state law. Complicating matters further, when state law prohibits the alleged discriminatory practice and provides an enforcement mechanism, the EEOC generally lacks jurisdiction over any Title VII or ADA charge until 60 days after a state administrative action is commenced, or until the state agency terminates its proceedings. This means that when state and federal laws overlap, the state agency must process the charge first.
Effectively, there is a 60-day “hold” on the filing of federal charges, and the federal filing period is reduced to 240 days. v Silver (1980) 447 US 807, 816, 825, 65 L Ed 2d 532, 542, 547, 100 S Ct 2486.
For example, if the initial charge filed by an aggrieved person was with the EEOC and was filed 241 days after the discriminatory act, the EEOC would be precluded from processing the matter for 60 days. (1988) 486 US 107, 111, 100 L Ed 2d 96, 103, 108 S Ct 1666.
It has also proposed that the tolerance clause would extend to church-related buildings, meaning that a religious organisation would not be compelled to hold a same-sex wedding reception, for example in its church hall.
The amendment comes after the Rev Martyn Shea, chairman of the Jersey Evangelical Alliance, said in November that ‘conscience clauses’ should be included within marriage laws that would allow religious individuals the right to refuse to rent or hire out venues, as well as to decline to perform or provide business services to same-sex couples.
Both defenses should be raised because, although technically the failure to file a timely administrative claim is a failure to properly exhaust administrative remedies, case law tends to treat this as a statute of limitations issue. (1982) 455 US 385, 393, 71 L Ed 2d 234, 243, 102 S Ct 1127.
The Convoluted Laws That Lead to These Simple Deadlines Although these “judicial statute[s] of limitations” are simple (Sosa v Hiraoka (9th Cir 1990) 9, 1455), the method by which they derive is not.
Theoretically, the filing of an administrative claim will trigger the investigatory and conciliatory procedures of the appropriate administrative body, with the hope that unlawful employment practices can be resolved and eliminated informally. (5th Cir 1970) 431 F2d 455, 466; Martin v Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. If successful, the need for judicial involvement may never arise, thereby easing the burden on the court system, maximizing the use of presumed administrative agency expertise, and providing a more economical and less formal means of resolving the dispute. Timing of Administrative Charge Perhaps the number one mistake made by plaintiffs in employment discrimination lawsuits is the failure to file a timely charge with the appropriate administrative body.