The University of Miami’s attempt to blame the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for its alleged religious discrimination is a flimsy and unsubstantiated defense. The university claims CMS guidance allowed it to disregard religious accommodations for testing requirements, asserting that CMS does not recognize such accommodations. If true, this stance could expose CMS to legal scrutiny for potentially violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the university’s argument crumbles under scrutiny, as it has failed to provide concrete evidence to support its claims.
Hypothetical Scenario
Consider this absurd hypothetical: the owner of Burger King decrees that all University of Miami employees must exclusively eat Burger King burgers—no exceptions, even if it violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. A Hindu employee abstaining from beef would be forced to comply or risk consequences. This situation mirrors the university’s logic; they claim compliance with CMS directives absolves them of responsibility for ignoring employees’ religious rights. This reasoning is as unconvincing as it sounds.
Misinterpretation of Title VII
Furthermore, the university stated in its determination letter that it granted exemptions “as authorized by law.” However, what law empowers an employer to “grant” exemptions? Under Title VII, employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs—not exemptions conferred at an employer’s discretion. The university's failure to provide such accommodations and subsequent termination of the employee undermines its position.
CMS and Employer Obligations
The core of the university’s argument is that CMS’s alleged dismissal of religious accommodations for testing requirements relieves them of their obligations. This stance overlooks Title VII’s mandate: employers must offer reasonable accommodations for religious practices unless doing so imposes an undue hardship. Simply blaming CMS does not erase this legal duty. If CMS enforces a policy that disregards religious accommodations, it could face its own legal challenges; however, the University of Miami is not a passive bystander. As an employer, it is independently accountable for complying with federal anti-discrimination laws, regardless of CMS guidance.
Lack of Evidence
Moreover, the university has yet to produce any tangible evidence—such as a specific policy document, memo, or direct communication from CMS—to substantiate its claims. Without proof, their argument amounts to little more than hearsay, serving as a convenient scapegoat rather than a credible defense. If the university is confident in its position, why has it failed to provide documentation? The absence of evidence suggests either a misinterpretation of CMS guidance or a deliberate attempt to evade accountability.
The Broader Implications
This issue transcends testing requirements or CMS policies; it strikes at the heart of religious freedom in the workplace. Employees should not have to choose between their faith and their livelihood, whether the conflict involves a medical test or a hypothetical fast-food directive. The University of Miami’s effort to shift blame to a third party undermines the protections enshrined in Title VII. If they are serious about defending their actions, they must present hard evidence, not vague finger-pointing.
Conclusion
Until the university can support its claims with tangible evidence, its argument remains a house of cards waiting to collapse. Meanwhile, if there is any validity to the notion that CMS policies conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws, CMS itself may face legal scrutiny. However, it is critical to note that the University of Miami cannot escape its responsibilities by claiming it was “just following orders.” Accountability starts with them.
Source: https://x.com/TaninRotzach/status/1897206805882720432?t=hWtP0vxDprzg_CCZSzFmYQ&s=19