Frazee v. Department of Employment Sec.

• Decision Date: 13 August 1987
• Docket Number: No. 3-86-0842,3-86-0842
• Citation: 512 N.E.2d 789,159 Ill.App.3d 474,111 Ill.Dec. 400
• Parties: , 111 Ill.Dec. 400, 47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1730, 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,309 William A. FRAZEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, an Administrative Agency of the State of Illinois; Sally Ward, Director of the Illinois Department of Employment Security; Bruce W. Barnes, Chairman, Board of Review, Defendants-Appellees, and Kelly Services, Defendant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 789

512 N.E.2d 789

159 Ill.App.3d 474, 111 Ill.Dec. 400,

47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1730,

47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,309

William A. FRAZEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, an Administrative Agency of the State of Illinois; Sally Ward, Director of the Illinois Department of Employment Security; Bruce W Barnes, Chairman, Board of Review, Defendants-Appellees and Kelly Services, Defendant.

No. 3-86-0842.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Third District.

Aug. 13, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1987.

Daniel J. Smith, Morton, for William A. Frazee.

Diane M. Curry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Chicago, for Illinois Dept. of Employment, Bruce W. Barnes, Sally Ward. No appearance for Kelly Services.

Justice SCOTT delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Peoria County which affirmed a decision of the defendant Illinois Department of Employment Security which determined that the plaintiff, William A. Frazee, should be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to his refusal to work.

The decision of the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security capsulizes the facts which led to this appeal. The pertinent part of that decision is as follows:

"In this case, the evidence established that the claimant refused an offer of suitable work without good cause, as his personal desire, no matter how strong or sincere (sic) held, did not constitute good cause for his refusal of work. When a refusal of work is based on religious convictions, the refusal must be based upon some tenets or dogma accepted by the individual of some church, sect, or denomination, and such a refusal based solely on an individual's personal belief is personal and noncompelling and does not render the work unsuitable. It is not the purpose of the Act nor of the Board of Review to abridge or to deny the claimant's constitutional right to the free exercise of religion by imposing a disqualification from benefits. However, other than his own self-serving testimony, the claimant has presented no corroborative evidence to establish that working on a Sunday was unsuitable for him. The claimant's contention that, subsequent to his refusal, he learned that his schedule could have been adjusted, is pure hearsay and conjecture and is of no evidentiary weight."

We have presented for determination in this appeal the question of whether the plaintiff's personal professed religious belief that he could not work on Sundays constituted good cause for his refusal of work.

In support of his contention that his refusal to work on Sunday because of his personal religious belief constituted good cause the plaintiff cites a number of cases. We direct our attention to three United States Supreme Court cases, namely, Thomas v. Review Board (1981), 450 U.S. 707, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624; Sherbert v. Verner (1963), 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965; and Hobbie v. Unemployment Compensation Appeals Commission of Florida (1987), 480 U.S. 136, 107 S.Ct. 1046, 94 L.Ed.2d 190.

An examination of the cases discloses that in Thomas the claimant was a Jehovah's Witness who quit his employment when he was assigned to a department which produced turrets for military tanks. The supreme court of Indiana found the claimant to be ineligible for unemployment compensation. This determination was overturned by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that the claimant's religious beliefs were entitled to First Amendment protection. In Thomas the court made the following observation:

"Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists." 450 U.S. at 717-718, 101 S.Ct. at 1432. (Emphasis added)

The Sherbert case involved a Seventh Day Adventist who was discharged by her employer for her refusal to work on Saturday, the sabbath day of her faith. Her application for unemployment compensation benefits from the State of South Carolina was denied. The United States Supreme Court reversed the supreme court of South Carolina on the grounds that denial of unemployment compensation benefits to a Seventh Day Adventist restricted the free exercise by the claimant of her religious beliefs. The United States Supreme Court in reaching such a decision stated:

"Here not only is it apparent that appellant's declared ineligibility for benefits derives solely from the practice of her religion, but the pressure upon her to forgo that practice is unmistakable. The ruling forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work, on the other hand. Governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against appellant for her Saturday worship." Sherbert v. Verner (1963), 374 U.S. 398, 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1794, 10 L.Ed.2d 965, 970-971.

An examination of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Hobbie discloses that the claimant Hobbie, after 2 1/2 years of employment at the jewelry store, informed her immediate supervisor that she was to be baptized into the Seventh Day Adventist Church and that for religious reasons she would no longer be able to work on her sabbath, from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. The claimant was ultimately discharged and denied unemployment compensation benefits by the State of Florida. The United States Supreme Court reversed the denial and in so doing relied upon its prior decision in the cases of Thomas and Sherbert.

Our examination of the foregoing cases...