Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Sherbert v. Verner, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963, addressed the question whether a Seventh-day Adventist was eligible for unemployment benefits after being discharged from her job for refusing to work on Saturdays, the Sabbath day for her faith.

Adell Sherbert was a textile-mill employee in South Carolina who became a Seventh-day Adventist in 1957. At that time, the mill operated on a 5-day workweek; however, it changed to a 6-day week in 1959. When Sherbert refused to work on Saturdays, she was discharged. She attempted to find work at other mills as well as in other employment sectors but was unable to secure a new position because of her restricted schedule. She filed a claim for unemployment compensation under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act, but her claim was denied on the grounds that she did not accept suitable work that was offered to her. This decision was upheld by the state supreme court, and an appeal was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963.

The Supreme Court overturned the state supreme court in a 7–2 ruling, declaring that the denial of unemployment compensation was in violation of the Religious Liberty Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]).” Specifically, the Court ruled that (a) disqualifying Sherbert from receiving unemployment compensation because she refused to work on Saturdays imposed an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion; (b) there was no compelling state interest present to justify the infringement of her free exercise rights; and (c) the decision did not represent the “establishment” of the Seventh-day Adventist religion.

Impact of the Court's Ruling

The significance of this decision is that it substantially expanded protection of the free exercise of religion through the establishment of what came to be known as the “Sherbert Test.” The test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to freedom of religious expression has been violated by the government. The Court must first determine (1) whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief and (2) whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on that belief. If these criteria are satisfied, the individual's freedom of religious expression must be honored unless the government can prove that it (3) is acting to protect a “compelling state interest” and (4) has pursued that interest in a way that is least restrictive or burdensome to religion. The Sherbert Test was employed somewhat consistently in the courts until the highly controversial Employment Division v. Smith Supreme Court ruling in 1990, in which the Court ruled that free exercise exemptions could not override generally applicable laws. The Smith ruling remains controversial to this day, and subsequent decisions have reinstated the Sherbert Test as a tool to protect freedom of religious expression against government encroachment.

  • state supreme courts
  • religion
Diane L.Moore

Further

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading