Thomas worked in the non-military operations of a large firm that produced both military and nonmilitary goods. when the company discontinued the production of nonmilitary goods, thomas was transferred to the plant producing military equipment. thomas left his job, claiming that it violated his religious principles to participate in the manufacture of goods to be used in destroying life. in effect, he argued, the transfer to the military-equipment plant forced him to quit his job. he applied for unemployment compensation with the state but was denied because he had not been effectively “discharged” by the employer but had voluntarily terminated his employment, making him ineligible for that state benefit.

Yes. The United States Supreme Court held that religious beliefs and practices do not have to be acceptable, logical, or comprehensible to others for them to merit the protection of the First Amendment guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Right or wrong, Thomas's religious convictions were honestly and openly held, and the Court concluded that his transfer to the war-materials plant, in which he would be directly involved in the manufacture of weapons, effectively placed him in the position of having to choose between his job and his religious principles. Thomas's departure from the company was thus a result of a decision made by the employer, and Thomas should be entitled to unemployment compensation.

The answer is an output contract