Adell Sherbert was steadily employed as a textile mill spool tender for over twenty years at Spartan Mills in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Since World War II, the mill had a five-day work week, Monday through Friday, and Mrs. Sherbert worked the first shift from 7:00a.m. to 3:00p.m.
However, on August 6, 1957, Mrs. Sherbert made a decision that would not only change her life, but would set the bedrock for many years to come regarding laws which substantially burden religious practice. Mrs. Sherbert became a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
Although her joining the Seventh-Day Adventist Church went without incident for approximately two years, Spartan Mills posted notice on June 5, 1959 that thereafter work on Saturday would be mandatory. She explained to her employer that her religious convictions prevented her from working on the Seventh-Day Sabbath, but her employer gave her no relief, and subsequently fired her after missing work for six successive Saturdays.
After her discharge, she applied for unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act. That law provided that, to be eligible for benefits, a claimant must be "able to work and . . . is available for work"; and also that one would be ineligible for benefits "if . . . he has failed, without good cause . . . to accept available suitable work when offered him by the employment office or the employer."
The South Carolina Employment Securities Commission ultimately denied Mrs. Sherbert's application for unemployment compensation benefits because the claims examiner concluded that her refusal to work on Saturday brought her within the provision disqualifying workers who fail, without good cause, to accept "suitable work when offerred . . . by the employment office or the employer." Essentially, the claims officer decided that Mrs. Sherbert's religious convictions regarding the Seventh-Day Sabbath were not "good cause" to refuse to work on Saturday.
Mrs. Sherbert sought legal counsel after the state denied her unemployment benefits, but the state trial court and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Employment Security Commission's decision.
Mrs. Sherbert appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). In a majority opinion delivered by Justice Brennan, the Court reversed the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court, ruling that the South Carolina Employment Securities Commission's decision to deny benefits to Mrs. Sherbert was unconstitutional because it worked a "substantial infringement" on Mrs. Sherbert's right to free exercise of her religion. Id. at 403. Furthermore, the Court stated that there was no "compelling state interest" which justified the substantial burden on Mrs. Sherbert's free exercise rights. Id. at 406-09.
The Court also remarked about the religious discrimination South Carolina practiced by affording certain protections to Sunday worshipers which the state did not reciprocate to those who worship on different days. Id. at 406. The Court stated that "South Carolina expressly saves the Sunday worshipper from having to make the kind of choice which we here hold infringes the Sabbatarian's religious liberty. When in times of ‘national emergency’ the textile plants are authorized by the State Commissioner of Labor to operate on Sunday, [but that] ‘no employee shall be required to work on Sunday * * * who is conscientiously opposed to Sunday work; and if any employee should refuse to work on Sunday on account of conscientious * * * objections he or she shall not jeopardize his or her seniority by such refusal or be discriminated against in any other manner.’ S.C.Code, s 64—4. No question of the disqualification of a Sunday worshipper for benefits is likely to arise, since we cannot suppose that an employer will discharge him in violation of this statute. The unconstitutionality of the disqualification of the Sabbatarian is thus compounded by the religious discrimination which South Carolina's general statutory scheme necessarily effects." Id. at 406.
Sherbert set the standard for years to come regarding analysis of laws which substantially burden religious practice. Although Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1990, arguably overruled the analysis used by Sherbert, many states (including Texas) enacted their own statute in response to Smith to reinstate the Sherbert standard. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 110.003. The Texas statute is called the "Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act," which I've provided a link to in the first blog. The United States Congress also enacted a statute in response to Smith that reinstates the Sherbert standard with respect to the federal government. 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb-1.
Lastly, Sherbert is not only fascinating because of its long progeny, but also because it was based on a Seventh-Day Adventist's struggle to convince a society that her day of worship should have the same protections Sunday worshipers have. The religious discrimination in South Carolina played an important role in the Court's final decision. Mrs. Sherbert died on December 11, 1989, with her tombstone reading "IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE ARE MANY MANSIONS."