Final answer:
The Connecticut statute granting employees the right not to work on their chosen Sabbath does not inherently violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Specific case law indicates that while religious practices may be accommodated, the law must remain neutral and generally applicable.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Connecticut statute giving employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath does not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause.
This clause, a part of the First Amendment, states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is often interpreted as requiring a separation between church and state. However, not all laws that may seem to establish certain religious practices are inherently unconstitutional. For instance, 'blue laws' that limit work on Sundays have been permitted.
Case law, such as Employment Division v. Smith, suggests that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Nonetheless, exceptions, as seen in Sherbert v. Verner, have been made where the Court mandated unemployment benefits for a Seventh-Day Adventist who refused to work on Saturdays due to religious reasons. This suggests a possible accommodation for religious practices.
However, in instances like Lee v. Weisman, the Court found that including a clergy-led prayer at a public school event was a violation of the Establishment Clause, indicating that there are boundaries to religious accommodation in public settings.
Thus, while the Connecticut statute gives individuals the freedom to observe their religious practices, it is also important that such laws remain neutral and apply generally to accommodate religious freedom without favoring any particular religious belief nor infringe on the rights of others or the secular interests of the state.
The Supreme Court's various interpretations suggest that a careful balance must be struck with each case falling in different places on the spectrum of religious accommodation and government neutrality.