Federal appeals court says potential employee cannot claim religious exception to providing SSN

[rug]

By Eric Heisig, Northeast Ohio Media Group
on January 30, 2015 at 1:06 PM, updated January 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Even if you believe a Social Security number is connected to an evil, demonic being, a federal appeals court has again ruled that you still have to provide it to an employer to get hired.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a published opinion issued Wednesday, ruled that a person's religious beliefs against using Social Security numbers is not a basis for a religious discrimination lawsuit. The Internal Revenue Service requires employers to provide its employees' Social Security numbers, and not doing so would constitute breaking the law.

The case was brought by Donald Yeager, an Austintown resident who was accepted to be a student intern at FirstEnergy in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in summer 2012.

The Christian Fundamentalist disavowed his Social Security number when he turned 18. He believes the number is a "mark of the beast," a reference to a passage in the Book of Revelations. The number 666, commonly known and popularized in at least one heavy metal song, is also the statute number where Social Security numbers are referenced in U.S. law.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/01/federal_appeals_court_says_pot.html

The three page opinion is here:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.pl

Donald Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., No. 14-3693.

[pinto]

1. D'oh.

[atreides1]

2. I wonder?

Will Mr. Yeager file an appeal?

[rug]

4. I doubt it. They shot him down on the pleadings not on substantive law.

In short, they held there was no religious discrimination because the employer was simply following federal law, not discriminating based on his religious belief. That was irrelevant in their decision.

The implication is that if he wants relief, he would have to challenge the law itself that requires businesses to collect SSNs from their employees.

[cbayer]

3. Is his SSN 666-66-6666?

What kind of idiot would take this case?

Is this part of some established religion or just his personal POV on this?

[rug]

5. The opinion didn't say whether he belongs to a religious group or not.

The Dispensationalists often claim the social security system is one of the portents of the coming antichrist but very few take it to this extreme.

A better take on religion and Social Security are the Amish cases, who object for much different reasons.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=455&invol=252

[cbayer]

6. The Amish issue is really different and deeply rooted in their ideology.

But they generally don't work for others, so I would wonder how much of an issue it is.

[Mnemosyne]

7. I've been told that the "mark" of the beast would be on the hand and/or head. They take things so

literally and expect tats, so I mess with them -

"Wrong! The head is actually your memory and the hand is the actual card. You can't do much without one. The actual physical card is needed more often now or sometimes accepted on memory. The last four digit request is extremely common for basic utility services. How many people do you know that do not know their SS#?."

Makes 'em think anyway...

I know some wonderful intelligent Christians, but around here there are so many more with the Rapture type delusions. Makes my head hurt even just thinking about talking to them.

[edhopper]

8. But Alito

said we must respect religious exemptions, even if they are based on fallacies.

[rug]

9. That's an incorrect paraphrase. In any event, it was irrelevant to the Circuit's decision.

[edhopper]

10. I know

just some morning snark.

But I do think that judgements like this are somewhat colored by how widespread the belief is.

[rug]

11. Most likely that would indeed be a consideration if the law itself was challenged.

They have yet to develop a good test for a sincerely held belief but that certainly would be one factor they weigh.