To me, that looks similar to refusing to hire a candidate that you suspect might require disability accommodations; or refusing to hire a young-ish woman because she might become pregnant and require maternity leave. And in all these cases, you might be able to get away with it if you never told anyone that that was what you were doing, which would make the answer: “Well, you can, but…”
I’m not seeing that this was addressed upthread, but in the case of the OP, where the postal worker is claiming his religious beliefs violate him working on Sunday, is there or should there be any consideration for whether his beliefs are his alone or are consistent with or in conflict with the belief system he claims to follow? For example, if he is Catholic and he claims that Catholicism forbids or discourages working on Sunday. I’m Catholic and have worked on Sundays my whole life, and I have never heard any other Catholics claim they can’t. The postal worker may be technically in the right, but if this is not the dominant nor common practice of the faith he is claiming to follow, can the Court consider that in their response? IOW, sure, buddy, YOU may feel that way but the Church really doesn’t, so you can’t claim religious exemption here.
There’s some “sincerely held belief” standard that doesn’t require that any particular religion requires something, I think.
Anyway, this Court will likely side with the religious person.
This, I think, ties into questions of what makes a belief a “religious” belief, and what counts as a religion.
They certainly can consider that. If the faith in question is a little less… traditional, they certainly have and will consider that. With Christian beliefs and practices they’ve always taken a very hands off approach to what is a sincerely held belief, which is obviously a political choice.
One way to look at it, I guess, is that courts reserve the right to do that in the right case. A new religion of which I am the only adherent and whose only article of faith is that it’s bad to come in for the early shift? They’re going to be skeptical. Anything vaguely related to the Bible? They probably aren’t.
Since there could be multiple meanings here: you are allowed to not hire that person, even though they might require religious accommodations. But you aren’t allowed to not hire that person because they might require religious accommodations.
No. When my company instituted a COVID vaccine policy, suddenly employees came out of the woodwork asking for a religious accommodation. When we asked them to explain their belief, many of them identified as belonging to religious institutions that did not take an anti-vaccination stance, but that didn’t matter, because it was their sincerely held belief. Practically speaking, every single employee who asked for a religious accommodation to avoid the vaccine received one. Eventually our vaccine requirement was dropped.
But I’m observing the Feast of Maximum Occupancy!
There have been a lot of court challenges that are variations on this theme. But it seems to me that if we start allowing arguments like “I claim to be Anglican and I interpret Anglicanism as requiring me to sacrifice a chicken on the City Hall steps the first Saturday of every month. Yes, I know it doesn’t actually say that anywhere, but I sincerely believe that’s implied” then there’s no standard at all. Everyone does whatever they wish. It seems that there might be a simple resolution to some of these cases (not all) where if someone claims exemption as part of X religion, but X religion doesn’t actually require that (and surely there would be religious authorities who could opine on this), then they don’t get to claim accommodations in the name of X. They could make some other argument as to why they need to sacrifice the chicken or whatever, but it wouldn’t be because they are X.
When it comes to religious accommodations, you can have general guidelines, but you really have to examine each case on its own merits. The vast majority of times when an employee asks for an accommodation, it’s really not a problem. Most people aren’t trying to game the system, and most employers are happy to make a reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to perform the essential functions of their job. But sometimes the employee is trying to game the system to their advantage, while other times the employer is being ridiculously obstinate.
There was some recent controversy over a Reform Jewish rabbi’s lawsuit challenging Florida’s new abortion ban, when a law professor argued that only certain Jews could legitimately claim to have a “sincerely held belief” in their religion’s right to abortion:
As the above article suggests:
This argument could set damaging precedents if it gains traction — allowing courts to scrutinize the legitimacy and sincerity of religious beliefs opens a dangerous door. And defining liberal religious practice as less legitimate could lead to a lack of protection for all but the strictest religious movements.
I once had a surprise customer visit. It was noon hour and the conference rooms were full because we allowed employees to use them if available. I tossed (you’ve got 5 minutes for this place to be clean and empty) the group that held a daily prayer meeting because I knew where they were and they were not business related.
The leader lodged a complaint with HR and I was taken to task. There were other non-business groups that were also non-religious why didn’t I select one of them. I honestly admitted that I knew where the religious group was because they advertised. I had a major customer waiting and they were my easiest target. They were tossed because they were visible not because they were religious.
I assume HR put something in my personnel file. Any manager reviewing it probably judged it more positive than negative.
These are two corporations that have stated Christian values and WILL NOT OPEN on Sunday. They were examples not of specific types of jobs, but of companies that are not open on Sunday. You want to not work Sundays, then you might have to work a menial job at these places.
There is sort of no standard at all regarding the belief itself , but that still doesn’t mean everyone can do as they wish. Because it must be a sincere belief - and the employer can question the sincerity if a person acts contrary to their claimed belief. If a person says they cannot work on Sunday morning because they must attend services and the employer somehow knows/discovers they actually attend services Saturday evening and play golf Sunday morning , the employer does not have to provide an accommodation. The standard for undue hardship is also pretty low - an employer doesn’t have to allow schedule changes if it would violate a seniority system or cause a lack of necessary staffing. My employer doesn’t have to allow me to start work at 9:30 am every day so that I can attend Mass at 8am every day if it will cause a staffing problem - but they may have to allow me to work the 4pm to 11 pm shift if there isn’t any seniority system to determine schedules.
Funny you should mention this. From somewhere upthread (let’s see if I can find this… Post 11)
I’m a good Catholic boy. Never heard that before. My kids have all had retail jobs and have all worked Sundays. However, it sounds like any Catholic would have a reasonable argument for Sundays off because it’s codified in the religion.
The schools in our area are closed on Good Friday. Doesn’t matter when Spring Break is; they’re closed Good Friday. When I’m in my “radical left” mind, I’m thinking that this is quite obviously a religious holiday (you can argue that Christmas is now a secular holiday with Santa and Frosty and all that; you can almost kinda argue Easter is secular with the Easter Bunny; there is no way on the face of god’s grey earth that you can argue Good Friday is anything but religious), and that it’s a blatant break of the separation of Church and State. Then my “centrist” mind steps in and says “yes, but if a substantial number of children and teachers will be missing this day, then it’s an accommodation for the community, kinda like some Wisconsin schools closing for the first day of deer hunting season.”
…or at any of the other thousands of places that aren’t open on Sunday.
Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby aren’t unusual for being closed on Sunday; they’re unusual for being restaurants or retail chains that are closed on Sunday. If you want to work at a restaurant or retail chain and not have to work Sundays, they might be your best bet (though there may well be small local businesses that are closed on Sunday).
But, most schools are closed on Sundays. It’s normal for offices to be closed on Sundays. Banks, dentists, barber shops, auto repair shops, veterenarians, etc.—some are open seven days a week, but many are not, and if there’s any day they’re closed, it’s typically Sunday (and sometimes also Saturday). Getting back to the OP, it used to be the rule that post offices were closed on Sunday; and that’s still the rule in many places, though there are more exceptions than there used to be.
Some of that depends on where you live, I suppose - but I think the other factor is the future. When Groff started working at USPS apparently people in his position didn’t work Sundays - and then later things changed. If I take a job at an establishment ( bank, dentist/vet office) that does not open on Sundays , that does not mean that things will not change in 2 or 5 or 10 years . But Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A will probably never open on Sunday.
As a legal matter, the answer has been a pretty clear “no.” The only legitimate question is whether the religious belief is “sincerely held” (which is aimed to filter out people gaming the system).
As a practical matter, it’s fairly obvious why this is so. For example, a common basis for “religious accommodation” is a request by a Muslim employee to be exempted from grooming standards in order to grow a beard – arguing that his religious belief requires it. However, it is disputed among Islamic scholars whether or not Islam prohibits men from being clean-shaven.
There are a lot of good reasons why we don’t want a US court to attempt to resolve questions of Islamic belief and practice; it’s enough that this particular Muslim believes that he must have a beard.
In this case we have a member of a group, a large number of which have historically shared his belief. But what if we have a lone Christian, who through his own interpretation of the bible, believes that he should sport payot (the Jewish side curls) while working at a company that requires short hair on men.
Does the fact that he is not in part of a larger sect invalidate his claim for accommodation? If not, how would a court judge if this is a sincere belief? These sorts of cases seem to be increasing, as new religions bloom while other people just want to game the system
It should not. Determining a sincerely-held belief has the potential to be challenging. (Although, I don’t think we see a lot of cases where that’s seriously contested – a possible exception is the recent vaccine issues).
I think it’s going to be easier if it’s a familiar type of belie. Religious requirements (and prohibitions) regarding grooming, attire, or diet are fairly common. I think that your hypothetical Christian with payot is going to get a benefit of the doubt from the fact that this is the type of thing that global religious require. Observing a Sabbath or religious holiday is going to be similar.
There’s also a certain value judgment about the burden of the accommodation – it shouldn’t be (that should be weighed later in the analysis). But we’re naturally going to be more skeptical of the person who wants to be able to use illegal drugs or prostitutes than someone who wants to be exempt from grooming standards.
Edit: There is an implication in these discussions that “religious accommodations” have been tailored to benefit Christian beliefs and not others. I don’t think that’s really true. But one feature of trying to accommodate all types of religious beliefs (familiar or unfamiliar) is that you wind up with very vague rules and a fairly permissive regime.
Just this morning I was eating breakfast in a diner with a TV on. I think it was tuned to Fox news, but I wasn’t sure. So apply a suitable discount to the story below.
Anyhow, as I understood from teh crawl under the report I could not hear, it appears some mainstream religious order has been running a needle exchange program for drug addicts in Philadelphia. Which has now been forcibly closed by the secular authorities.
They are now suing or appealing through the court system on the grounds that this closure is a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. As best I could figure it out, in a nutshell they’re contending that their beliefs require them to save people from harm whenever possible. And the government, by closing this program, is preventing them from living those beliefs by saving the addicts from harm. So the constitutional right to freedom of religion requires that they must be permitted to reopen their clinic.
Sounds like nonsense to me, but I would not be surprised to have it get a favorable interpretation from today’s SCOTUS or certain lower courts.
It also sounds like exactly the sort of nonsense we’d expect to see multiply rapidly if there was legal support for widespread few-questions-asked religious accommodation. Or more precisely, “request for accommodation under pretense of religion”.
In this case the folks are at least arguably well-intentioned do-gooders. Religious accommodation to deny civil rights, reproductive rights, etc., would be a less do-goodery sort of demand. But one we could expect to see early and often. We already do.