I am currently hiring an employee for a 30 hour per week position that requires occasional weekend work (once or twice a month, depending on how the dates fall that month). One of the candidates, who is otherwise well qualified for the position, is unable to work Sundays due to her religious convictions.
While this is not exactly insurmountable, it would be an inconvenience as a major part of the position is to give relief to current employees who have been working evenings and weekends. Certainly anybody who didn’t have a scheduling conflict with working weekends would be asked to do so, and certainly I would take into consideration a person’s inability to work a weekend if, for example, it was because that’s the day they work another job or that’s the day they rehearse with their band.
What I can’t decide is this: is it legal or ethical discrimination to take the inability to work on Sunday into account when it’s for religious reasons IF working Sundays is considered automatically part of the job for every other applicant?
If the position requires (or would likely require) working on Sunday, then it is legal to discriminate against people who can’t, or won’t, work on Sundays.
No- but for gods sake, dude- don’t mention to tth eapllicant that’s why you didn’t hire him! Even a dismissed lawsiut can cost you plenty. The applicant you selected was “better qualified”.
… which requires the employer to accomodate the employee ONLY
IANAL, but if “a major part of the position is to give relief to current employees who have been working evenings and weekends”, then I would certainly imagine that the “resulting personnel problems” clause would apply, and it would certainly count as an “undue hardship” to let this one off on Sundays as well.
To me it seems discriminary simply since you state that you would consider someone else that couldn’t work on Sunday, due to non-religious reasons. Just don’t spread this fact around and you probably can get by with it. [sup]That is if your conscience will let you.[/sup]
My suspicion is that what Sampiro is saying here is “I’d like my current employees to do their fair share of weekend work, if they’re not doing anything else important.”
However, from the very beginning I realized that it was phrased ambiguously, and know I see that Harriet and Kniz have interpreted it as referring to the new hiree.
Perhaps Sampiro would clarify exactly what was intended?
Quick overview: In the U.S., a company is required to make “reasonable accommodation” for religious beliefs. However, if the employee’s religious beliefs interfere with the performance of the job beyond “reasonable accommodation”, the employer is permitted to fire (or not hire) the employee for non-performance of essential tasks associated with the job.
The definition of “reasonable accommodation” has been pretty much left to the courts, rather than to legislation. “Reasonable” certainly includes considerations of cost, impact on other employees, and similar.
I don’t really get this. If a person has some religious belief that forbids him/her/it to work on a particular day in the week, why would he apply for a postion, knowing that the job entails working on that specific day, in the first place?
Have you ever met anyone that actually did everything in their job description?
True story:
At the college where I work, a gentleman was hired specifically by the English dept. to run the student newspaper. He got to campus, and then decided that he didn’t want to. He still has a job, teaching English lit. and we have no student newspaper.
So maybe the applicant in this case is looking for some accommodation from the outset.
[sup]That is if your conscience will let you.[/sup]