Limits to a boss forcing religion on an employee

[GrumpyBunny]

@Duckster

Getting back to the OP there are EEOC protections preventing an employer from imposing the employer’s religious beliefs upon employees with selected exemptions.

Well, there’s the law, and then there’s what actually happens.

If the majority is large and powerful enough, they can cheerfully impose their beliefs on the minority without any real repercussions.

@Morgenstern

Wonder how far that Muslim flight attendant is going to get refusing to serve alcohol to passengers on the airliner? Will they lift her suspension?

That case had me spluttering in frustration this morning. Why the hell do people take jobs they know will put them in contact with things their “religion” disagrees with?

Bake the cake, arrange the flowers, sign the forms, and serve the damn drinks! That’s YOUR JOB!
(“YOU” and “YOUR” above is general, not directed to any one person.)

[Carryon]

While religion is, not only a protected class, it is also an enumerated right in the Constitution so it brings with that, more protections and issues.

With the marriage and Kentucky situation you also have other things. I’m not at all familiar with Kentucky but many states and the Federal government will not hold themselves to the same standard as private business. For instance, if you’re hourly an employer can’t make you take comp time in lieu of overtime, time and half. The federal government conveniently exempts itself from this.

Add to this, the Kentucky woman is an elected official not a mere employee. This complicated a lot of things.

For private business, the EEOC says that if a person requests an accommodation or the employer should reasonably see they need one, the employer must make it.

Customer preference is never a reason for discrimination of a protected class.

Religion is a protected class, but the EEOC extends this to any system of beliefs, so in theory you could have your own personal religion but that would be harder to prove, if needed than say a Catholic, Jew or Muslim.

It does not matter when or how often an employee changes their religion so long as the beliefs of said employee are sincere.

The employer must accommodate the request, if such request does not impose an undue burdon the employer.
Here’s some examples: Joan becomes an Orthodox Jew and cannot work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. She switches shifts with coworkers. The employer must allow this.

Now should Joan not be able to find someone willing to switch the company must move her or reschedule others IF, it does not prove an due hardship. The EEOC has ruled, in cases like this, having to hire someone new or force someone to unwillingly switch shifts IS an undue hardship.

The EEOC imposes minimum standards for “undue hardship,” while other resources like the ADA impose the maximum standards for “undue hardship.”

In the airline case, it would seem that allowing the Muslim flight attendant to refuse to serve alcohol is reasonable as long as there is another flight attendant to serve it. Of course only a judge or arbitrator can decide for sure.

Remember the above is a general overview, your state may have different laws which provide one with different recourses as well as a CBA or legally enforceable employment contract.

[Carryon]

@Nava

I wasn’t trying to answer, but pointing out that what is and is not work-related isn’t always obvious. I used to go to Mass on Thursdays because my working hours were incompatible with going on Sunday.

This would be allowed. The EEOC says you have to make an reasonable accommodation, but it does not say it has to be the accommodation that the employee wanted. Even the ADA and FLMA say it has to be a reasonable accommodation, not just the one the employee want or even (in the case of FMLA or ADA) the employee’s physician wants.

For instance, if you’re religion requires you attend church mass, and you request an accommodation that you don’t work Sunday mornings so you can attend it, you’re employer would have to honor it.

But suppose your church has masses at 8am, 10am, 12 noon, 3pm and 6pm. Your employer could decline your request not to be schedule in the morning, because you could attend at 6pm and still fulfill your religious obligation.

Again, employers must make an accommodation, but not necessarily the one you want, if it can be handled differently.

[Carryon]

@Saint_Cad

So the question is how far can a boss legally go imposing their religious belief on their staff

a) if not work related like requiring the employee to fast during Ramadan or attend church every Sunday.

b) if work related like not speaking to a woman in the shop with her head uncovered.

In the USA it’s commonly joked there are the sets off labor laws, Federal law, state law and California law, so you may find somewhat different answers.

In absence of a valid employment contract or a CBA (collecting bargaining agreement), as long as something is not illegal an employer can do it. This includes extending to areas off time work.

In example a)… Courts have said, employees have a first amendment right to talk about and even proselytize about their religion at work. But like most things the court has said, it’s not absolute.

Let’s say Joan is trying to convince her co-workers to become Jewish. She has the right to do so and cannot be disciplined. BUT suppose Sam says, “Enough, I don’t want to hear this, so stop it.” If Joan continues to press Sam she can be terminated legally. Why? Because she now violated Sam’s religious rights NOT to be converted.

Again it’s a right but not absolute.

In addition you have a problem with a boss saying you have to attend church or fast during Ramadan. Courts have said, when an employer “truly and actually” controls an employees time, said employee must be paid for it. If a person was told to attend mass, he could file a wage claim and if it was determined it was required that said employee would have to be paid for it. (This would not apply to salaried workers as they don’t get paid by the hour).

I don’t think many employers are going to want to risk having to pay a person to attend church.

In example b) I’m not quite sure of what your asking, but if the customer refuses to speak with a woman unless her head is covered, the EEOC has said, customer preference is never an excuse.

If you mean if an employee could refuse to wait on someone because her head isn’t covered, if the company could make a reasonable accommodation without it being an undue hardship, then the most likely would.

But you can see these things are not cut and dry issues, especially when two people’s rights conflict.

[MsRobyn]

@md2000

There are basic tasks that any job involves. If you cannot interact with women dressed in a normal fashion for that business setting, then presumably you took the job under false pretences since you cannot do the job as it is defined. You cannot claim religious discrimination when let go. Of course, the employer must make “reasonable accommodation” so if there is a separate line for men-only that you could reasonably work on, say, then that might be the correct compromise. I can’t think of too many places like that outside of a steam bath business.

Many observant Jews will not touch members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married, even in situations where some casual contact is the norm, such as when a cashier hands back change. So many Jewish businesses have female employees who wait on women, male employees who wait on men, or Christian employees who don’t have to worry about it. I once made a call on a Jewish community center that had an Orthodox Jewish rabbi as director. His secretary was a Christian woman because she could take coats and do other tasks that required person-to-person contact.

[Saint_Cad]

@Carryon

In example b) I’m not quite sure of what your asking, but if the customer refuses to speak with a woman unless her head is covered, the EEOC has said, customer preference is never an excuse.

A few religions discuss women with their heads uncovered in public. Islam is one and some interpretations of Corinthians is another.

[QUOTE=1 Cor 11:6]
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
[/QUOTE]

So a woman comes into the shop with long flowing hair and I am told not to acknowledge her or allow her to buy anything and he quotes me the above passage (making it clear it is for religious reasons), is he allowed to do that since it is a work-related directive? If I choose to follow MY religious beliefs and help her out and I get fired for it, have MY religious rights been violated?

Or with MsRobyn’s example. I as a Christian help a woman out and touch her hand. Can my Othodox Jewish boss fire me for violating HIS religious tenets?

That was the gist of b)

[Muffin]

@Sandwich

I’m not convinced.

There must be a difference between ordering a subordinate to do something illegal and ordering a subordinate not to do something legal. Ms Davis appears to have the authority to tell her staff not to issue marriage licences.

I respectfully disagree. Issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples is a duty of Kentucky clerks and deputies inherent to their jobs.

The Kentucky governor has directed them either to fulfill their duty to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples or find other employment.

The grounds for requiring that marriage licenses be issued to same sex couples have beenfound in the USA’s Constitution by the Supreme Court of the USA, which makes issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples the law of the land that all jurisdictions, including all county clerk and deputies, must follow.

By illegally refusing to issue marriage permits, the clerk violated Kentucky Revised Statute 522.020 (1) (b), and by instructing the deputies to not issue marriage permits (instructing them to commit the illegal act of 522.020 (1) (b)), the clerk also violated 522.020 (1) (a). She could go down on two class A misdemeanor counts if she were prosecuted.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

KRS 522.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent
to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person
of a benefit, he knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized
exercise of his official functions; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent
in the nature of his office; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his
office.
(2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 187, effective January 1, 1975.

[Voyager]

@Carryon

In example a)… Courts have said, employees have a first amendment right to talk about and even proselytize about their religion at work. But like most things the court has said, it’s not absolute.

Let’s say Joan is trying to convince her co-workers to become Jewish. She has the right to do so and cannot be disciplined. BUT suppose Sam says, “Enough, I don’t want to hear this, so stop it.” If Joan continues to press Sam she can be terminated legally. Why? Because she now violated Sam’s religious rights NOT to be converted.

Again it’s a right but not absolute.

In addition you have a problem with a boss saying you have to attend church or fast during Ramadan. Courts have said, when an employer “truly and actually” controls an employees time, said employee must be paid for it. If a person was told to attend mass, he could file a wage claim and if it was determined it was required that said employee would have to be paid for it. (This would not apply to salaried workers as they don’t get paid by the hour).

Your first case is more interesting if Joan is the boss, and pressures employees to become Jewish. I think that becomes religious discrimination whether or not they have the guts to tell her to shut up. In the second case, even a salaried employee who can show that attendance at Mass is not work-related might deserve official compensation, since salary is not an excuse to enslave an employee. Same goes for making a salaried employee mow your lawn.

More interesting if the requirement is not just to attend Mass and shut up but to participate, praying along with the congregation. Now that would be employer religious discrimination in many cases if not all.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Williamson County, Texas’s Sheriff’s department only hires Baptists to be constables. Not just Baptists, by the way, but Baptists who oppose gay marriage and abortion.

[md2000]

@Saint_Cad

A few religions discuss women with their heads uncovered in public. Islam is one and some interpretations of Corinthians is another.

So a woman comes into the shop with long flowing hair and I am told not to acknowledge her or allow her to buy anything and he quotes me the above passage (making it clear it is for religious reasons), is he allowed to do that since it is a work-related directive? If I choose to follow MY religious beliefs and help her out and I get fired for it, have MY religious rights been violated?

Or with MsRobyn’s example. I as a Christian help a woman out and touch her hand. Can my Othodox Jewish boss fire me for violating HIS religious tenets?

That was the gist of b)

Well, to start with - if you don’t wait on women only (with long hair) then you, your boss who ordered it, and the business are guilty of sexual discrimination. Whose rights trump whose is an interesting matter for the courts. (Hobby Lobby comes to mind.)

The flight attendant serving alcohol issue is interesting; at what point does “reasonable accommodation” end? Letting another flight attendant do the task might be inconvenient on smaller aircraft. Do they then refuse to pick up alcohol drink garbage when done? (There was an issue in Minneapolis a while ago I read about, where some Muslim taxi drivers refused fares from the airport who had been drinking.)

I think that in Canada, if you start out agreeing to do a job that you know for some reason you are incapable of doing, that is grounds for termination. If you can’t interact with women, if you can’t serve alcohol, if you can’t work in a kitchen that serves pork… and you knew that was part of the job or it should have been obvious and you didn’t mention these restrictions before being hired, then you can be fired.

Not sure what happens if you convert afterward being hired, but IIRC “convenient” conversions you may have to prove to a judge.

[Saint_Cad]

@md2000

I think that in Canada, if you start out agreeing to do a job that you know for some reason you are incapable of doing, that is grounds for termination. If you can’t interact with women, if you can’t serve alcohol, if you can’t work in a kitchen that serves pork… and you knew that was part of the job or it should have been obvious and you didn’t mention these restrictions before being hired, then you can be fired.

Not sure what happens if you convert afterward being hired, but IIRC “convenient” conversions you may have to prove to a judge.

Which raises the question, what happens if the job description changes after you are hired e.g. the restaurant you work at gets a liquor license.

[Siam_Sam]

I recall back when the Osmonds were big, Donny and Marie antagonized a lot of non-Mormon staff by sending missionaries to their homes. That was legal, but they lost a lot of good help that way.