| Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida
(No. 85-993)
475 So.2d 711, reversed. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syllabus
| Opinion
[ Brennan ] | Dissent
[ Rehnquist ] | Concurrence
[ Powell ] | Concurrence
[ Stevens ] |
| HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT
JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in the judgment.
As the Court concludes, ante at 141-142, this case is controlled by Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981). The State of Florida provides [p148] unemployment benefits to those persons who become "unemployed through no fault of their own," Fla.Stat. § 443.021 (1985), but singles out the religiously motivated choice that subjected Paula Hobbie to dismissal as her fault and indeed as "misconduct connected with . . . work." § 443.101. The State thus regards her "religious claims less favorably than other claims," see Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 707, n. 17 (1986) (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and concurring in result). In such an instance, granting unemployment benefits is necessary to protect religious observers against unequal treatment. See United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 264, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). I also agree with the Court's explanation, ante at 142-143, of why the two grounds upon which we might distinguish Sherbert and Thomas must be rejected. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.