That’s pretty much the situation now. An employer is not required to provide a religious accommodation if it has more than de minimis cost to them. You do have to look at each case on its own merits, but in a nutshell that’s the general guideline.
Employers have the right to control their business hours and the hours their employees work. If Chick-Fil-A decides to open on Sunday, they aren’t necessarily required to accommodate every employee who wants Sunday off.
In the United States the definition of religious accommodation is currently: “no one can be required to follow any rule that the white Christian right wing dislikes; hopefully hurting or owning the libs at the same time.”
For example, there is a less than 0 percent chance that we would not have had vaccine mandates if it was just Muslims who were against the mandates.
I don’t think it was like that. IIRC, he wasn’t asked before he was hired, and they told him he had to work on Sundays after some time on the job.
I am not defending him, but it is not like taking a job where you know you will have to work on days you can’t work.
IIRC, that is what happened.
At least one Chik-Fil-A’s employees worked on a Sunday. Mind you, it was a very good reason and, in my personal opinion, it shows more Christian behavior than the chain’s usual policies.
I’m sorry, but that’s a common misbelief about what the Constitution is. It doesn’t “allow” things, it (esp. the Bill of Rights) states how the government cannot infringe upon on our existing rights.
As it applies to the OP, my point is that we are allowed to believe as we wish. That is independent of work requirements.
It depends what you mean by “making others responsible for implementing…”
It’s because of the constitution that the last time i was called for jury duty, i didn’t serve. I told the judge that serving on that trial would interfere with cooking the passover dinner for my family. He asked if that meant it would interfere with practicing my religion, and i said yes, and he excused me.
Good point and probably worthy of it’s own thread. Free exercise of religion is a ghastly concept.
Perhaps the issue here is ‘what are the limits of accommodation’. The judge had other jurors. If he hadn’t he might not have been so lenient. Where do you draw the line?
Rightly or wrongly , if the judge didn’t have enough other jurors after accommodating religious beliefs there probably wouldn’t be a need for a jury on that date/time - because if a large proportion of the jury pool had religious beliefs that would prevent them from serving on a jury on February 10 , the chances are excellent that a large proportion of the lawyers, court staff , witnesses and so on have similar religious beliefs and any proceedings that require a jury would not be scheduled for that day. This happens sometimes in situations that have nothing to do with a religious belief per se - I have never heard anybody claim that they needed the entire day off from work on December 24 for religious reasons , but every job I’ve ever had avoided meetings, hearings , trainings on that date just as they would be avoided on the Monday before Election Day or the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Yup. No serves jury duty on Christmas day, nor on Easter. This accommodation just means that Jews and Muslims are not disadvantaged as compared to Christians in their civic responsibilities.
For various reasons, I would not be eligible for most juries, and this is one that I could have served on, so I was a little disappointed that the timing didn’t work. But grateful that I didn’t have to be tied up in the courtroom when I needed to prepare for Passover.
Yes, it seems like most people manage to take it in stride by avoiding conflict or adjusting to the situation. I do not recall it was ever a general work issue.
After 7 years, IIRC. USPS changed things after it entered into a deal with Amazon to deliver their packages on Sundays.
You don’t have the votes. That is all. Sometimes we forget that law is (ideally) a byproduct of popularity contests. It often doesn’t live up to personal ethical standards.
~Max
And it was a short-sighted decision.
Major update: The Supreme Court decision is in. Unanimous (!) decision in favor of the postal worker.
Apparently they threw out the “de minimis” standard and put in a new one: “Instead, the court explained, an employer must accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs unless it can show that doing so would “result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of” the employer’s business.” From here:
I’m not terribly surprised that it’s unanimous - the old standard more or less invalidated the whole concept of accommodations. But this decision doesn’t really mean Groff “won” although I’ve seen it reported that way - it just means the lower court must reconsider the case under a new standard.
Is the ruling that any one religious accommodation cannot cause undue hardship, or that religious accommodations as a whole cannot cause undue hardship?
I look forward to “an employer must accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs” not actually meaning an employee’s religious beliefs for certain religious beliefs.
Some religions are more equal than others. Much more equal.
With respect to the First Liberty Institute, the de minimus standard already made it difficult for employers to refuse accomodations for dress or prayer breaks and I don’t expect this decision to have an impact on those situations. Looks like I’ll be having a word with my attorneys about what constitutes a substantial increase in cost.