Respecting Religion in the Workplace - Accommodations to be Re-evaluated by the Supreme Court Soon

[Quintessence]

"A far-reaching federal statute, Title VII, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious beliefs and practices of employees. Yet what exactly that means has been unclear for decades. This issue comes to a head on April 18, 2023, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.

The case, which could have wide-reaching impact, is focused on two questions. The first is whether the court should abandon an existing standard that says employers can refuse religious accommodations that would impose more than a minimum, or “de minimis,” cost on their businesses.

Second, the court will decide whether an employer may prove that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” by showing the burden it imposes on other workers, rather than the business itself."
--- From How far must employers go to accommodate workers' time off for worship? The Supreme Court will weigh in
​

This was interesting to me because I'd always assumed that religious accommodations per Title VII had more teeth to them than is implied by this scholar. Given how profit-obsessed businesses are it would be a low bar to show more than "de minimis" impact, I would think. I welcome a re-examination of this issue especially in a landscape where employers have disproportionate bargaining power against workers. Still, the idea of shifting the measure to burdening one's fellow workers is a bit troubling.

I'd recommend giving the entire article a read - it also links out to external references relevant to the story. What do you think about this case and issue?

 

[The Hammer]

I think it could be beneficial, based on what you've mentioned.

But my question is will this standard be evenly applied to all religious beliefs and circumstances, or only mainstream views of the big 4 (in the US).

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

My initial knee-jerk reaction is "Aww, wee lamb." Having tried to get accommodations for numerous religious holidays of my own over the years, my empathy runeth dry that Groff had to work on Sunday. That said, he's going to have a hell of a time showing the scripture or doctrine that Christians aren't to work on Sundays.

 

[Brickjectivity]

will this standard be evenly applied to all religious beliefs and circumstances,

I'm not sure its possible or even something religions would benefit from.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm not sure its possible or even something religions would benefit from.

I'm not sure I understand you?

 

[lukethethird]

Some like to go to church on Sundays so having to work could very well interfere with that. Let people that want to work Sundays work Sundays, and if there are not enough that want to then meet halfway and have workers rotate working on Sundays. Next.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There have been some pretty high level accommodations. In major league ball at least two Jewish pitchers would not play on Yom Kippur.

Sandy Koufax wouldn’t play on Yom Kippur. Neither would another ace Jewish pitcher.

 

[Heyo]

Some like to go to church on Sundays so having to work could very well interfere with that. Let people that want to work Sundays work Sundays, and if there are not enough that want to then meet halfway and have workers rotate working on Sundays. Next.

Just have a diverse workforce. Asatru won't have to work on Wodan's Day, Muslim not on Thursdays, Jews not on the Sabbath and Christians not on Sundays. And the business can stay open 24/7.

 

[exchemist]

My initial knee-jerk reaction is "Aww, wee lamb." Having tried to get accommodations for numerous religious holidays of my own over the years, my empathy runeth dry that Groff had to work on Sunday. That said, he's going to have a hell of a time showing the scripture or doctrine that Christians aren't to work on Sundays.

You must be joking. The Wee Frees in Scotland even prevented the ferries in the Western Isles from running on a Sunday, until comparatively recently. Silent protest greets first Sunday ferry as South Harris defends its

They rely on the Fourth of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

— Exodus 20:8-11

 

[exchemist]

"A far-reaching federal statute, Title VII, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious beliefs and practices of employees. Yet what exactly that means has been unclear for decades. This issue comes to a head on April 18, 2023, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.

The case, which could have wide-reaching impact, is focused on two questions. The first is whether the court should abandon an existing standard that says employers can refuse religious accommodations that would impose more than a minimum, or “de minimis,” cost on their businesses.

Second, the court will decide whether an employer may prove that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” by showing the burden it imposes on other workers, rather than the business itself."
--- From How far must employers go to accommodate workers' time off for worship? The Supreme Court will weigh in
​

This was interesting to me because I'd always assumed that religious accommodations per Title VII had more teeth to them than is implied by this scholar. Given how profit-obsessed businesses are it would be a low bar to show more than "de minimis" impact, I would think. I welcome a re-examination of this issue especially in a landscape where employers have disproportionate bargaining power against workers. Still, the idea of shifting the measure to burdening one's fellow workers is a bit troubling.

I'd recommend giving the entire article a read - it also links out to external references relevant to the story. What do you think about this case and issue?

I must say I think it's quite reasonable that an employer should not require its workers to be at their beck and call all seven days of the week. What about observant Jews and the Jewish Sabbath? What about muslims and Friday? In many European countries, even though Christianity is fading in intensity, people are not contractually obliged to be available for work on a Sunday. Work-life balance, anyone? I hope the Supreme Court finds in this guy's favour.

 

[Koldo]

"A far-reaching federal statute, Title VII, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious beliefs and practices of employees. Yet what exactly that means has been unclear for decades. This issue comes to a head on April 18, 2023, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.

The case, which could have wide-reaching impact, is focused on two questions. The first is whether the court should abandon an existing standard that says employers can refuse religious accommodations that would impose more than a minimum, or “de minimis,” cost on their businesses.

Second, the court will decide whether an employer may prove that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” by showing the burden it imposes on other workers, rather than the business itself."
--- From How far must employers go to accommodate workers' time off for worship? The Supreme Court will weigh in
​

This was interesting to me because I'd always assumed that religious accommodations per Title VII had more teeth to them than is implied by this scholar. Given how profit-obsessed businesses are it would be a low bar to show more than "de minimis" impact, I would think. I welcome a re-examination of this issue especially in a landscape where employers have disproportionate bargaining power against workers. Still, the idea of shifting the measure to burdening one's fellow workers is a bit troubling.

I'd recommend giving the entire article a read - it also links out to external references relevant to the story. What do you think about this case and issue?

Expect a massive religious "conversion" depending on the decision.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think it could be beneficial, based on what you've mentioned.

But my question is will this standard be evenly applied to all religious beliefs and circumstances, or only mainstream views of the big 4 (in the US).

I'm not sure I understand you?

All I mean is that regulators are not great at evenly applying standards to people with different needs. For example leaving out the religion question: why are small farms under the same rules as massive farms? Its discouraging small farms, and its giving monopoly power to large farms. Its true that we need regulations, yet the regulations cannot be finely controlled as this goes against the nature of regulation. Regulation means regular or same. Instead regulations give to the large and take from the small, ironically; or they do the reverse. So to remedy this we would need two sets of regulations: unequal regulation would be required. This would not be regulation.

With religion the needs and differences are myriad, so careful regulation will be frustrating and perhaps counterproductive. On the other hand people need to have days off, sometimes; and employers don't want to ever give days off. We're very lucky to have weekends and some holidays, but these are in favor of larger religions. The regulation favors the larger.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must be joking. The Wee Frees in Scotland even prevented the ferries in the Western Isles from running on a Sunday, until comparatively recently. Silent protest greets first Sunday ferry as South Harris defends its

They rely on the Fourth of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

— Exodus 20:8-11

Of course the Sabbath in the Old Testament is Saturday.. Sort of. It starts at sunset on Friday and goes to sunset on Saturday.

 

[Secret Chief]

Just have a diverse workforce. Asatru won't have to work on Wodan's Day, Muslim not on Thursdays, Jews not on the Sabbath and Christians not on Sundays. And the business can stay open 24/7.

What it it's only a small workforce, making absences on a rota impractical?

 

[Secret Chief]

When the law was changed in the UK to permit shops to open on Sundays, accommodations were made for those whose religious beliefs meant they should not work on Sundays, presumably Christians. I think over time this has slipped off the radar and now Sundays is just another shopping day.

 

[Secret Chief]

Reminds me of this case:

"An airport check-in worker who won a landmark battle against British Airways, allowing her to wear a cross to work, has launched legal action against airline bosses. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2013 that Nadia Eweida had been victim of religious discrimination after she was sent home for wearing a silver crucifix around her neck. In a new employment tribunal claim, she accused airline managers of victimisation and harassment. She claimed bosses treated her rudely and harshly after she returned to work in 2007."

- BA worker who won crucifix case launches legal action against airline bosses

- Eweida v United Kingdom - Wikipedia

 

[SalixIncendium]

It depends on the job description. If it's clear upon hire that working Sundays is a part of the job, then the worker above shouldn't have a leg to stand on. If the job requirement is working Sundays, and your religion mandates not working that day, find another job.

That said, the post office historically did not operate on Sundays, and has only done so recently to meet with package shipment demand (mostly by Amazon). If this is a tenured worker that was around before the Sunday work requirement was implemented, he should have been accommodated.

 

[exchemist]

Of course the Sabbath in the Old Testament is Saturday.. Sort of. It starts at sunset on Friday and goes to sunset on Saturday.

There's a whole story about why Christianity changed from the Jewish Sabbath to observing instead the "Lord's Day" on Sunday, to do with the primacy of the Eucharist and the timing of Christ's crucifixion.

 

[Heyo]

What it it's only a small workforce, making absences on a rota impractical?

Then the business is too small to be open 24/7.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.

He needs to lose this case. The implications otherwise is that the employer has to respect religious beliefs at his own expense even to the point of changing the rules that existed when the employee applied for the job. If you choose a religion that limits your options, it limits YOUR options, not your boss' This is the same attitude of entitlement we saw during the pandemic, when anti-vaxxers were incensed that they might lose their jobs to express their preference to remain unvaccinated. It's the attitude that only one's own preferences matter.