A proposed religious accommodation poses an undue hardship if it could deprive one other employee of a job desire or other profit assured by a bona fide seniority system or collective bargaining settlement (CBA). Because the proof establishes that wearing pants is really necessary for security causes, the accommodation requested by Patricia poses an undue hardship. Absent proof that permitting Harvinder to put on the kirpan would pose an undue hardship in the factual circumstances of this case, the hospital is liable for denial of accommodation. The EEOC doubtless will find cause in William’s case as a result of there is no indication it might pose an undue hardship for the grocery retailer to switch its policy with respect to his request. If an employee’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship, the employer should discover alternative lodging. To show undue hardship, the employer might want to exhibit how much value or disruption the employee’s proposed accommodation would contain. Since the evidence indicated that David might have been accommodated, without undue hardship, by wearing his hair in a ponytail or held up with a clip, the employer will probably be liable for denial of cheap accommodation and discriminatory failure to rent. If both brothers file EEOC costs challenging the denials of their accommodation requests, the EEOC likely is not going to find reasonable cause in Patrick’s case because the prison’s denial of his request was primarily based on reputable, evidence-primarily based security concerns posed by the actual religious garb sought to be worn.
Harvinder defined to Bill that her faith requires her to wear a kirpan with a view to comply with the Sikh Code of Conduct and gave him literature explaining that the kirpan is a religious article of religion, not a weapon. Nevertheless, Bill told her that she would be terminated if she continued to wear the kirpan at work. David applies for a job as a server at a restaurant which requires its male employees to put on their hair “short and neat,” so as to supply a sure picture to its clients. When the restaurant supervisor informs David that if supplied the position he will have to chop his hair, David explains that he retains his hair lengthy primarily based on his religious beliefs and gives to wear it held up with a clip or below a hair internet. Quick Corp. and its employees’ union have negotiated a CBA which supplies that weekend shifts will rotate evenly amongst workers. The existence of the collectively bargained system for determining weekend shifts shouldn’t result in the denial of accommodation if a voluntary swap could be arranged by the employee without violating the system or in any other case posing an undue hardship.
If Susan can discover certified coworkers voluntarily keen to swap shifts to accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs, the employer might be discovered liable for denial of reasonable accommodation if it refuses to permit the swap to happen. However, if other staff were unwilling to swap shifts or have been in any other case harmed by not requiring Susan to work on the shift in question, or the employer could be subject to other operational costs that had been greater than de minimis by permitting Susan to swap shifts, then the employer can display undue hardship. The commonest methods are: (1) flexible scheduling; (2) voluntary substitutes or swaps of shifts and assignments; (3) lateral transfers or modifications in job assignment; and (4) modifying office practices, policies, or procedures. When Harvinder’s supervisor, Bill, learned about her kirpan from a coworker, he instructed Harvinder not to put on it at work as a result of it violated the hospital coverage against weapons in the workplace. Both employers deny the request, citing a uniformly utilized office policy prohibiting employees from wearing any sort of head protecting. She additionally showed him the kirpan, allowing him to see that it was no sharper than scissors, box cutters, cake knives, paper cutters, and other secular objects in the workplace.
Allowing voluntary substitutes and swaps does not represent an undue hardship to the extent the preparations don’t violate a bona fide seniority system or CBA. Of course, the mere existence of a battle between the requested accommodation and a seniority system or CBA doesn’t relieve the employer of the duty to try cheap accommodation of its employees’ religious practices; the question is whether or not an accommodation could be offered with out violating the seniority system or CBA. Both Patrick and William search permission from their respective employers to put on a fez at work as an act of religion on a particular holy day as a part of their religious expression. Patrick is employed as a correctional officer at a state prison, and his brother William is employed as a grocery retailer manager. The manager refuses this accommodation and denies David the position based on his long hair. Generally, the fee of administrative prices obligatory for an accommodation, such as prices related to rearranging schedules and recording substitutions for payroll purposes, or infrequent or temporary payment of premium wages (e.g., extra time rates) whereas a more permanent accommodation is sought, won’t constitute greater than a de minimis cost, whereas the common cost of premium wages or the hiring of extra workers to supply an accommodation will generally require more than de minimis price to the employer.