was fired by her employer because she refused to work on Saturdays, which her faith did not permit. Sherbert applied for unemployment benefits but was denied for failing to demonstrate “good cause” for her unemployment. The Supreme Court held that the denial of benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause because it “force[d] [Sherbert] 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.” Id. at 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790. In Sherbert, then, the “good cause” exemption required an official to examine an applicant’s specific, personal circumstances. That is, every unemployment compensation decision was made on a ease-by .2d 649, 657 n. 4 (E.D.N.C.1999) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct.
holding that counsels failure to advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea cannot rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance holding that public policy exception is not limited to legislative directives holding that a limited financial hardship exception to the schools uniform policy does not rise to the level of a system of individualized exemptions  holding any improper delegation did not rise to level of plain error holding thirty days in disciplinary segregation does not rise to the level of punishment invoking the due process clause