It’ll usually pose an undue hardship for an employer to accommodate an applicant’s or employee’s asserted religious perception in opposition to offering or utilizing a social safety quantity, or identification necessities imposed by one other federal legislation. An employer has an obligation to fairly accommodate an applicant when scheduling a take a look at or administering different choice procedures, where the applicant has informed the employer of a sincerely held religious perception that conflicts with a pre-employment testing requirement, unless undue hardship would end result. If, however, no job at the identical pay is readily accessible, then the employer might satisfy its obligation to reasonably accommodate the lineman by providing to transfer him to a special job, even at lower pay, if one is available. However, the supervisor is just not required to provide the worker together with his selection of the obtainable locations and might meet the accommodation obligation by making any applicable location accessible that would accommodate the employee’s religious wants if this may be accomplished absent undue hardship, for instance by offering an unoccupied space of the work house slightly than the conference room. She would possibly work in a non-public home, tending to a family’s wants; unlike a nanny or a housekeeper, nonetheless, she’ll never receive a paycheck or an opportunity to speak to her family again.
After September 11, 2001, her manager objected, telling Nasreen that the purchasers may assume she was sympathetic to terrorist hijackers. The employer will not be required to accommodate Neil’s request to stay in such a place but avoid all conditions the place he may even briefly work together with customers who have requested contraceptives, or to accommodate a disruption of enterprise operations. The employer could self-discipline or terminate Neil if he disrupts business operations. Whether it poses an undue hardship for an employer to supply an alternative technique of identification for matters akin to authorities kinds, building safety, or timekeeping will depend on the information. An undue hardship would exist, for instance, if the one convention room is used for work conferences at that time. An employee whose assigned work area is a factory ground slightly than an enclosed office asks his supervisor if he might use one of many company’s unoccupied convention rooms to pray during a scheduled break time. Religious dress could embrace clothes, head or face coverings, jewelry, or different gadgets. When Prakash explains that he can’t trim his beard for religious reasons, the employer gives to allow Prakash to put on two face masks instead of trimming his beard. Prakash thinks that sporting two masks is unreasonable (for reasons unrelated to his religious observe) and files a Title VII cost.
Absent undue hardship, religious discrimination could also be found where an employer fails to moderately accommodate the employee’s religious costume or grooming practices. Religious grooming practices could relate, for example, to shaving or hair size. An employer may should make an exception to its policies, procedures, or practices in order to grant a religious accommodation. Some courts have concluded that it might pose an undue hardship if an employer was required to accommodate a religious dress or grooming observe that conflicts with the public picture the employer wishes to convey to prospects. While there could also be circumstances by which permitting a selected exception to an employer’s dress and grooming coverage would pose an undue hardship, an employer’s reliance on the broad rubric of “image” to deny a requested religious accommodation may in a given case be thought-about disparate treatment, together with because it’s tantamount to reliance on buyer religious bias (so-referred to as “customer preference”) in violation of Title VII. When an employer has a dress or grooming coverage that conflicts with an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, the worker might ask for an exception to the coverage as an affordable accommodation.
Neil informed his employer that he refuses on religious grounds to participate in distributing contraceptives or answering any buyer inquiries about contraceptives. Neil refuses to signal another employee or inform the shopper on the phone that he is placing them on a quick hold whereas he gets one other employee. The employer reasonably accommodated Neil by offering to allow Neil to signal discreetly to a coworker who would take over servicing any customer who telephoned, faxed, or got here to the pharmacy regarding contraceptives. For example, if a pharmacist who has a religious objection to dispensing contraceptives may be accommodated with out undue hardship by allowing the pharmacist to sign a coworker to help prospects with such prescriptions, the employer should not choose as a substitute to accommodate by transferring the pharmacist to a special place. If the employer permits staff to use the services at challenge for non-religious actions not related to work, it could also be troublesome for the employer to exhibit that permitting the amenities to be used in the identical manner for religious actions will not be an inexpensive accommodation or poses an undue hardship. This issue needs to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
