RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2007
- 56,047
- 18,142
Right up until the Company called a Local Iman or religious leader and he informed the Court that school and work are accepted practices that overrule the 5 prayers a day.I think the workers have the higher burden to meet, as they are the ones with the requirement that adversely impacts work production. This isn't s a sikh wanting to wear a turban with the MTA logo, or a woman wanting to cover her hair when most workers do not. This is time away from production that the employees expect to be allowed while being compensated for working.
If a lawsuit were to happen, it would be very easy for the former employees to make a prima facia case of discrimination. They have a sincere belief in the Muslim religion. The practice of the five daily prayers is part of that belief. The accommodation they were requesting was previously granted. Their separation from employment was directly tied to not being given the requested accommodation. That is sufficient to make their prima facie case. The burden will then shift to the employer.
The reason why the burden will be so difficult for the employer is precisely because the employer had previously granted the requested accommodation to many individuals. Everything that you've been arguing all boils down to hypothetical abstractions about what might happen. But that is not going to cut it in a court of law. No employer has the right to discriminate on the basis of religion simply on hypothetical or abstract problems that might arise from accommodating the employee.
For example, it would be unlawful to discriminate against a Catholic employee on the basis that his being Catholic was suddenly making all the other employees angry, thus causing productivity problems when the other employees refused to work with the Catholic employee. Such an argument is an abstraction; the cause of any problems is due to disciplinary matters and does not warrant impinging on the Catholic man's beliefs. Alternately, a Pagan who does not eat meat for religious reasons might need a reasonable accommodation at their job in a hotel to store a sack lunch in the kitchen's food cooler if the employer normally provides daily meals for employees lunch break and prohibits them from leaving the premises during their lunch. If that accommodation has always been granted, but one day the rule is changed on the hypothetical basis that other people might want to also store food in the cooler and that could or might cause productivity issues, then the employer's reasoning would be discriminatory.