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

[pearl]

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

If the Court does find for a religious option, I would assume that it would be considered with any interview for employment. Or simply find a job that does not require work on Sunday.

 

[Sand Dancer]

"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?

Many shops are opting to stay open on weekends and close a couple of days during the week. Smart. Weekends are when most people are available to shop.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that someone could reasonably believe that anti-vaccination "entitlements" are in the same attitude category as wanting to engage in joyful celebrations or days of rest and study pertaining to a religious practice.

Anti-religion, much?

 

[Quintessence]

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).

Yup.

While Title VII and religious accommodations sound good in practice, actually implementing it in a religiously heterogenous landscape is challenging. The "default" cultural religion is almost inevitably privileged on accommodations because everyone's schedules are made to revolve around them.

Given this court's treatment of women's basic human rights I'm not especially optimistic about their ability to handle these cases well. They are very OK privileging Christianity over other (ir)religion. If this were a case of a Pagan not being permitted their 8 sabbats off, it's doubtful the case would have even made it to SCOTUS.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that someone could reasonably believe that anti-vaccination "entitlements" are in the same attitude category as wanting to engage in joyful celebrations or days of rest and study pertaining to a religious practice.

I'm not sure what to make of somebody unwilling to see that they are the same attitude, which is that what I want matters and needs to be protected, but what you want doesn't. This Christian doesn't care what impact his demands have on the workplace any more than the anti-vaxxer who insisted on working unvaxxed.

Anti-religion, much?

Anti-entitled attitude, which includes the expectation that simply because one claims that his religious beliefs are not being respected that others should accommodate them. No. If you want the freedom to insist on Sundays off, find somebody willing to hire you under those conditions or become self-employed. For me, freedom of religion is confined to the personal space. One is free to believe whatever he likes, read whatever holy book he likes, pray to whatever god he likes, say grace around the table, gather with like-minded people to reinforce one another, and decorate one's house, car, body, or business as he likes. If you insist on more, you insist on too much. But when you're in the public space in a secular society, you conform to its mores. If they say you need to work Sunday to hold a particular job, you work Sunday or find work elsewhere rather than insisting on rights you don't or shouldn't have. America doesn't exist to cater to the religious. It tolerates them.

But the faithful should worry not. The present Court leans theocratic. And you are correct. Pagan holidays aren't accommodated in the workplace. Your employer is not required to bend to your self-imposed limitations if you have any. Pagans are free to do whatever they like as long as they keep it in their personal space and obey the laws of the land. I doubt you expect more. This Christian litigant does. Why should such people get more?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Asatru won't have to work on Wodan's Day

I actually hold Friday as more sacred than Wednesday, Thursday a close second.

You must be joking.

I'm being sarcastic, but not joking. The Ten Commandments are relative to Jewish law and culture, and rationally a Christian would have to justify that as distinct to a Secular arbiter that their Holy Day is Sunday, in difference to the Jewish Sabbath. It'd be an inordinate feat and more time than it's worth for the argument to be made. But this is America, and Christianity is able to phase right through the wall between Church and State, leaving it up for every other religion but itself.

 

[The Hammer]

I actually hold Friday as more sacred than Wednesday, Thursday a close second.

I prefer Saturday (washing day).

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I am shocked....shocked I tell you!
We are sharing one brain for this moment.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm all for giving workers flexibility and rights. But I don't see how those could be ethically based on religion-based exemption. Favoritivism would still be discrimination.

By all means, try to accomodate. But not in ways that are denied to people who happen not to share their belief system. Make it possible to avoid working on Sundays, Fridays, Saturdays, whatever. But do so in ways that do not involve some sort of requirement of doctrinary alignment, lest you end up deciding which beliefs are legitimate for employment purposes and which are not.

Incidentally, there are many more and more tangible reasons to make exceptions and accommodations than mere adherence to a belief system. Shouldn't people who have special needs relatives have the option to work less at a correspondingly lessened salary, for instance?

 

[CharmingOwl]

This is only ever going to benefit religions with organizations powerful enough to defend their interests. Folk practices and non-major religions are going to be screwed like they always are in this country.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure what to make of somebody unwilling to see that they are the same attitude, which is that what I want matters and needs to be protected, but what you want doesn't. This Christian doesn't care what impact his demands have on the workplace any more than the anti-vaxxer who insisted on working unvaxxed.



Anti-entitled attitude, which includes the expectation that simply because one claims that his religious beliefs are not being respected that others should accommodate them. No. If you want the freedom to insist on Sundays off, find somebody willing to hire you under those conditions or become self-employed. For me, freedom of religion is confined to the personal space. One is free to believe whatever he likes, read whatever holy book he likes, pray to whatever god he likes, say grace around the table, gather with like-minded people to reinforce one another, and decorate one's house, car, body, or business as he likes. If you insist on more, you insist on too much. But when you're in the public space in a secular society, you conform to its mores. If they say you need to work Sunday to hold a particular job, you work Sunday or find work elsewhere rather than insisting on rights you don't or shouldn't have. America doesn't exist to cater to the religious. It tolerates them.

But the faithful should worry not. The present Court leans theocratic. And you are correct. Pagan holidays aren't accommodated in the workplace. Your employer is not required to bend to your self-imposed limitations if you have any. Pagans are free to do whatever they like as long as they keep it in their personal space and obey the laws of the land. I doubt you expect more. This Christian litigant does. Why should such people get more?

While I mostly agree with you regarding entitlement in general, I see this case more in the light that the employer doesn't even want to make a minimum effort to accommodate the wishes of the employee. Iow the employer feels entitled to freely rule over the time of the employee.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure what to make of somebody unwilling to see that they are the same attitude, which is that what I want matters and needs to be protected, but what you want doesn't.

How familiar are you with Title VII protections? I think that some of the improper equivalence here is perhaps a result of not processing what Title VII is about.

The full text of Title VII can be found here - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

In essence, Title VII is part of the Civil Rights act and addresses equal opportunity for employment. It prohibits discrimination by covered employers (such as the United States government, as in this case) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It's not about "entitlement." It's about ensuring freedom from discrimination based on these protected classes. Failure to make reasonable accommodations for these protected categories is, in effect, engaging in discrimination. That's what this case is about - how to define what reasonable accommodations look like to avoid discrimination against protected classifications by employers.

Would you like to see Title VII thrown out or abolished? Same question at @Revoltingest.

 

[Quintessence]

While I mostly agree with you regarding entitlement in general, I see this case more in the light that the employer doesn't even want to make a minimum effort to accommodate the wishes of the employee. Iow the employer feels entitled to freely rule over the time of the employee.

Since the falling power of unions in this country, employers have wielded disproportionate power against their employees in many sectors. I can't speak to how much this is true of the USPS, but it does end up meaning that reasonable accommodations don't get made (it's not really about "entitlement"). What's challenging is determining what a "reasonable accommodation" is, exactly.

In some ways, I instead ask the question "is it reasonable to ask for one day of the week off, on a consistent basis?" I mean... yes. Yes, it really needs to be. People have lives outside of their work, though this country is often pretty terrible with work-life balance.

There are some additional interesting complications for this case, such as the underfunding of the USPS and market monopolization by spamazon, which in some ways caused this guy's problem. He tried to work at places that didn't do Sunday service, but then factors beyond his control kept stacking against him. Those complications give me some pause on this case. Plus we know how far-reaching some of these cases can become. Generally I favor worker's rights, regardless of the reasoning, but blimey...

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you like to see Title VII thrown out or abolished? Same question at @Revoltingest.

No, but I see modification as useful.
To avoid the tail wagging the dog, but I won't
go into details cuz I'm not familiar enuf.

 

[Alien826]

My religion of Horizontalism expressly forbids all work. Hmmmm ...

 

[Quintessence]

No, but I see modification as useful.
To avoid the tail wagging the dog, but I won't
go into details cuz I'm not familiar enuf.

I could get on board with possible modifications. On the one hand, I don't want to see any protected status misused or abused for questionable reasons. On the other hand, there are always going to be a few bad actors and that is a poor reason to toss the idea or make the threshold so difficult as to be functionally muted.

I'm less familiar with Title VII myself than I ought to be, but I work in a place where it's (almost) never been a problem to get holidays off and working in the liberal-leaning education sector means cultural diversity, (ir)religious or otherwise, is respected... and people are team players who help each other out.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see this case more in the light that the employer doesn't even want to make a minimum effort to accommodate the wishes of the employee. Iow the employer feels entitled to freely rule over the time of the employee.

Why should the employer accommodate an employee just because he cites his religion as a reason for not complying? The boss might as a gesture of kindness, but I don't see where he has a duty to do so if it isn't the law, nor why a law should protect the employee who won't be what he was hired to be.

Would you like to see Title VII thrown out or abolished?

I don't have an opinion about that.

You wrote "on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." One of those is very different from the others. Only one is a choice. Only one can result in behavioral choices that can affect coworkers and the company's bottom line. Only one demands special treatment.

And firing somebody because he won't work Sundays when that is part of the job that he was hired to do is not religious discrimination. He'd be fired no matter what his reason for refusing to work would be.

Nor are his religious rights being trod upon. He's still free to not work Sundays, just not there. Most businesses are closed Sunday. Go apply to one of those.

 

[Quintessence]

Why should the employer accommodate an employee just because he cites his religion as a reason for not complying?

Because Civil Rights and Title VII exist. Any employer who falls under covered employers must abide by these laws. These laws are subject to some interpretation and nuance, hence the case that is going before the Supreme Court.

You wrote "on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." One of those is very different from the others. Only one is a choice.

Is it? Are you sure? Could you choose to not be whatever (ir)religion you are today? How about tomorrow? Next week? Could you change your (ir)religion without it being completely disingenuous to who you are as a person?

And firing somebody because he won't work Sundays when that is part of the job that he was hired to do is not religious discrimination.

Did you read the article? Working on Sundays was not part of the job he was originally hired to do. Read the article. His situation is very interesting.

 

[Quintessence]

To add another complication, if employees are expected to just... not work for employers that don't accommodate them, think about what this means for the interview and application process.

"Jews need not apply, we will not allow you to take your holidays off."

Oh boy. This'd be bad for employers, never mind employees. Yikes. Instant run afoul of Title VII and lawsuits, ho!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Works great if you have a massive team with diversity not only of religion, but also skills, so they can cover each other.

Wouldn't work in the business I work for.

We try to accommodate individual requirements (be they religious or otherwise) as best we can. It's not perfect, and it can become a negotiation, but overall it works in most cases.