When does your religion excuse you from doing part of your job?

[Tom Wetmore]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/?tid=sm_fb 

 

A helpful explanation of the law surrounding this whole issue from Kentucky...  Written by a bona fide expert.  A bit long but well worth reading.

[CoAspen]

Thanks......

[CoAspen]

I have been uncomfortable with some of the decisions the .org has won in the past over work related issues. No one forces me to work for my employer. I can ask for something, but if they refuse than I have a choice. I can not in good conscious force my employer to accommodate my religious belief. I want total freedom for everyone in all matters relating to religion.

[Aliensanctuary]

 I can ask for something, but if they refuse than I have a choice.

I doubt that few employers, if any, are impressed with your religion if you sue them to get what you want. If one doesn't want to do secular work on Sabbath, then it's time to move on.

[whbae]

It is easy for someone who live in this country here moves on to other job because most of the employers do not work on Saturdays .  It is very easy to quit one job and move on to other job, however, look at many other countries where Sat. work is required by the most employers.  The students are required to attend schools on half day of Sat.  These countries are extremely hard for anyone to find a job, period.  In some countries the employment is almost a life time job. When a student refuse  to attend school on Sat. he will be dismissed and no other school to apply.  Someone might say why don't you go to a SDA school?  I wish the answer is that simple.

Let me tell you that we the people live in this country called USA have it very well in every respect.  When I hear a SDA works on the Sabbath willingly or unwillingly it makes me very sad.

[Outta Here]

Not always that easy, even in America--not easy find decent wages, not easy to complete education without working/taking classes during Sabbath hours.

Someone's got to keep these cloud servers up and running so we can converse on Sabbath...

[Stan]

this makes more sense.

[bonnie]

Except this is false. No attempt was made to force anyone to follow the religion of another. The woman jailed didn't make any attempt to convert or force. Right or wrong she said I believe this to be wrong and do not want to have my name affiliated with it

 

Similar to the stewardess that says I believe it to be wrong to touch or serve alcohol.

Edited September 12, 2015 by bonnie

[Stan]

As repugnant as it is to me, she used her personal beliefs to deny them their constitutional right to get married, and blocked those under her for doing the same.

[bonnie]

As repugnant as it is to me, she used her personal beliefs to deny them their constitutional right to get married, and blocked those under her for doing the same.

They were free to obtain a  license from other county clerks. Yes she should have simply resigned,no doubt about it but she did not prevent anyone from getting married in a variety of other places.

The stewardess is perfectly willing to refuse a legal right by others to consume alcohol. In the absence of another stewardess available to do her job the person is denied because of the personal beliefs of the stewardess.

Both should have resigned their position 

[Stan]

I was under the understanding that she did not allow her staff to provide that.  To me, letting them do that would have been reasonable accommodation.

[bonnie]

If the job requirements are in place when you apply for the position do them as agreed or resign because of your religious beliefs.

It is expecting a lot for fellow employee's to pull up the slack for your religious beliefs after the fact.

 

[bonnie]

I was under the understanding that she did not allow her staff to provide that.  To me, letting them do that would have been reasonable accommodation.

She did not because her name was still required.  A reasonable accommodation was reached after the judge flexed his muscle and jailed her.Her name is no longer required.

 

[bonnie]

We flew on a very crowded flight in Dec. It was filled to capacity. The attendants were kept hopping the entire flight. The passengers would have been very irate I think if the attendant would have had to get another to come and do a portion of her job. Who would have filled in for the one filling in?

[Tom Wetmore]

It happens all the time. Swapping tasks. "I can do the snack/meal service and you do the beverage service".  "If you will do trash pick up, I will be happy to do the galley clean up."  

For Sabbath keepers a common reasonable accommodation is to find someone willing to swap shifts.  A reasonable accommodation is required as long as it does not cause an undue burden to the employer.

[bonnie]

What is not reasonable is to accept a position knowing there are certain responsibilities you can't  perform and telling the employer after the fact.

What happens when there is something in the meal such as pork the Muslim can't serve?

We swapped shifts at work on a once in awhile basis. It was not reasonable to expect someone hired for one shift to always be willing to swap to work another

[Tom Wetmore]

And such facts should be taken into account when an attempt is made to resolve the matter, no matter at which stage that happens.  There needs to be some willingness to be creative, to consider viable alternatives and to make some compromise.  These situations end up in court when one side or the other or both just draw line in the sand and refuse to budge or consider any other way than their own. 

Shift swapping works many times but not in every situation.  Sometimes the union contract senority rules gets in the way. I remember the accommodation my father was allowed was to just leave work early on Friday when sundown was before the plant closing time.  That was his job after he lost one for refusing to join the union.  No religious accommodation rule in those days.   

In the many cases I have read, there is an underlying fact that often meant success or failure of any possible accommodation.  Was the worker a good worker.  If the employee seeking a religious accommodation was a valued good worker a willingness to work things out seemed to be more likely. But where there were other issues, even if there was at least theoretical accommodation possible, the motivation to try seemed to get in the way.  

[bonnie]

When someone accepts a position with certain responsibilities and after the fact decides they cannot perform all their duties I do not think they deserve accommodations.

Nor do I think their required duties should become the permanent responsibility of other employee's unless they are willing.

You do,so be it

Others pay the price for their behavior. One of the reasons employer's will shy away from hiring those they know can become a problem.

Edited September 13, 2015 by bonnie

[Tom Wetmore]

No, you misunderstand.  This is not about what I like or think should be done.  This is about the state of the law as it is right now.  That seems to be lost sight of in all the media bloviating.  Willingness to cooperate with accommodation of a fellow worker is in fact a real part of the solution. Depending on the facts and circumstances that can make or break an accommodation.  Unfortunately I see an increased unwillingness to play nicely in the workplace as a general rule and it seems in these situations.  There is only so much an employer can do in many cases if other employees are unwilling to swap shifts, for example.  If the workplace rules give employees little choice in scheduling, the employer can shift the schedule around.  But that is seldom the absolute rule of the employer.  There are often senority rules that give employees with senority first choice on shifts.  Most often these get worked out between employees without the employer getting involved.  We don't hear about those situations though.  We only hear about when things break down.

[Tom Wetmore]

When someone accepts a position with certain responsibilities and after the fact decides they cannot perform all their duties I do not think they deserve accommodations.

From that perspective, anyone converting to Adventism, could not get any accommodation for Sabbath work conflict.  A person could not come under a renewed conviction and become a more devoted  practioner of their faith and be accommodated.  "Sorry, you were a Catholic when we hired you.  Since you became an Adventist and can't work late on Friday after sunset in the winter months, you are fired."  That is not how the law works.

[Outta Here]

Sometimes employers are not willing to make Sabbath accommodations when the initial contract for work requires occasional Saturday hours. Sometimes there are threats of firing if the employee does not show up for work on Saturday. Sometimes a person can be out of work for a year because of those "sometimes."

 

[bonnie]

Sometimes employers are not willing to make Sabbath accommodations when the initial contract for work requires occasional Saturday hours. Sometimes there are threats of firing if the employee does not show up for work on Saturday. Sometimes a person can be out of work for a year because of those "sometimes."

 

That is all very true. I would think many adventists deal with a conflict of work and their religious beliefs. Being unwilling is sometimes more of a matter of being unable to do so reasonably by the employer. What works well on paper or in theory does not always work as well in practice

[bonnie]

From that perspective, anyone converting to Adventism, could not get any accommodation for Sabbath work conflict.  A person could not come under a renewed conviction and become a more devoted  practioner of their faith and be accommodated.  "Sorry, you were a Catholic when we hired you.  Since you became an Adventist and can't work late on Friday after sunset in the winter months, you are fired."  That is not how the law works.

Sometimes that is true. Accommodation does not mean that the employee sets the terms of the accommodation.

If you become an adventist and Fri after sundown is mandatory because of the position or what is required of you you just might be looking for another job.

In the case of the muslim stewardess I do not believe she was a muslim for two years before she figured out serving alcohol was against her religious convictions.

Nor is it reasonable to expect that any stewardess is going to know in advance when a passenger asks for assistance for a meal whether he will order alcohol or not.

Again what is law is not always moral or right. Lying or misrepresenting your ability to do a job and then suing may be right and moral to you,for me it isn't

[bonnie]

If I were in a position to hire someone today I would be very wary of hiring a muslim or the more militant gays.

Employer's deal with enough headaches without hiring  the headaches.

 

Edited September 13, 2015 by bonnie

[Gregory Matthews]

I have a personal level of frustration with some of the positions that people take in these matters.

 

The fundamental issue is what the statute and the courts have ruled in this matter.  It is not what people wish were the law.  It is not what people think the law says.

The law gives  considerable rights to the employer.  The employer is not normally required to make unreasonable accommodation. 

Then when we get involved with attempting to help the person, we are often damned for not advocating a course of action that is simply impossible to obtain and  unreasonable on the part of the employee.  I have been involve in a large number of these.

 

I am reminded of a licensed clinical provider, employed in a hospital who ran into problems based upon her religious belief:   1) She stated that she would only work on the Sabbath in the event of a major disaster that overwhelmed the hospital.   2) On the basis of her religious belief she decided that she could not administer prescribed medication to patients and could only treat them be alternative means.  She was up on charges that could have placed her in jail.

I negotiated a release from her employment situation along with dropping all other charges against her.  She soundly condemned me to other SDAs as an agent of the devil for not attempting to get her what she wanted along with continued employment.

NOTE:  I had a long history with her and had helped her before.  This only reports the last time I got involved and this was many years ago.