Welcome to the Slippery Slope

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I didn't know flight attendants really did anything besides serve food, drinks, and get the occasional blanket. The safety demonstrations are mostly done on a monitor screen now. Unless the plane starts to crash, I think they are just waiters and waitresses, although very cool ones who get to travel.

 

I agree, however, that I think we need to err on the side of religious freedom. And it is still legal for companies to ask up front if there are any physical limitations, cultural beliefs, etc. that will limit the ability of the applicant to perform this particular job. If the applicant lies, then that is grounds for termination. People mistakenly think that is discrimination, but it is not. The grey area is when things change after the fact. This airline has already demonstrated it can accommodate her because coworkers picked up the slack in the past. Those coworkers set the precedent.

 

The court clerk case,bakery owners, vegans, doctors not Insemminating, etc. who do not want to serve certain people are not as well protected. Their cases are the real controversial ones. They went into business (or public office) with no constraints to their religious freedom, yet found themselves later in quite a debacle. As a legal matter, they do not have a prayer's chance as we are already seeing played out in the courts. But, from an ethical standpoint, there should be a way to protect those with religious beliefs provided similar services are available elsewhere. It seems a shame to lock society into a narrow minded forced belief system when it is the diversity of our country which made it so great in the first place. Rigidly forcing people to perform out of their belief system, to me, is more constraining than the belief system itself.

 

Maybe. Maybe not.  It will depend on what the coworkers say.  If they report that picking up the slack was unfair to them, created inefficiencies, or lead to poor customer service then the airline allowing it to be tried actually improves their case as it shows they made a good faith effort to accommodate her but it failed.

 

Employers expecting employees to complete the tasks they have been hired to do is not "rigidly forcing people to perform out of their belief system".  The current reasonable accommodation provisions outlined by the EEOC actually do a credible job of balancing the rights of both parties.  "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" is actually captured quite well by requiring reasonable accommodations *provided* they do not cause an undue hardship on others (ie employer or other employees).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sure that is in a list of other requirements.

 

Ok, so I'm the odd duck that doesn't think it's particularly onerous for one flight attendant not to serve alcohol. I don't even think it's that special snowflake ish, among the religious liberty cases I've seen.

 

For the record, I have no religious convictions about alcohol, I'm not a tee-totaler, and I'm not Muslim. I just think it's a fairly easy accommodation. If she was refusing to touch men or something, it would be different because that could severely impact her ability to ensure passenger safety (primary job), but a flight attendant is not, primarily, a bartender even if that is what the public sees most visibly on a flight.

 

Serving drinks is part of her primary duty of providing customer service. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm pretty sure case law says that reasonable accommodation should be made. Since a flight attendant's job is mostly about flight safety and serving drinks is non-essential I would hope they could accommodate her. There are all kinds of ways I can think of, logistically, that could allow a Muslim to not serve alcohol on flights. I would rather err on the side of religious freedom. If someone is hired to do one specific thing and they refuse, that's one thing. I don't think this is a case like that.

 

The EEOC has guidelines on what constitutes a reasonable accommodation, and generally excusing an employee from a certain set of duties that other employees have to pick up isn't going to fly.

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

 

Key section:

An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.

 

Allowing this flight attendant to not provide a service standard to her position could easily fail the undue hardship standard in the 3 areas I bolded.  The airline's case is significantly improved by the efforts they made to accommodate her (offering reassignment and allowing other employees to attempt to take on her duties) as it shows a good faith effort on their part to reach an accommodation. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Okay, but selling alcohol has always been part of the job for her, even when she applied and started working. It wasn't a new and recent change due to a law. So slightly different situation.

 

I just want to point out that even if the job duties were new, as long as she was not being singled out for special treatment due to her religion, she could still be reasonably expected to perform the duties if a reasonable accommodation was not available.  There is no special burden on an employer to give preferential treatment to employees who were hired before changes to a job.

[abba12]

Rigidly forcing people to perform out of their belief system, to me, is more constraining than the belief system itself.

 

Except that no one is rigidly forcing anyone to perform any duties outside their belief system. The company offered her jobs where there was no alcohol involved, they are simply requiring her to perform all the duties of the job she CHOOSES to have and could leave or be transferred from at any time. It's not like she has to do this or she will be homeless, she was offered other jobs, she just wants this job, but altered to suit her. If they cater to this, then there is no grounds at all not to cater to a vegetarian refusing to serve meat dishes. Or someone who follows Kosher refusing to serve a dish which contains both meat and dairy. And suddenly the airline is juggling various beliefs about who is willing to do which parts of their jobs on which days, depending on the times and menus? And, isn't one of the requirments of a flight attendant first aid, which may include mouth-to-mouth resuscitation? Well there are certainly a few groups out there who would object to that, so can their members just refuse that bit of being a flight attendant too? And none of these people can be sent on single-attendant flights because they need someone working with them to fill the gaps, so those who have no restrictions have to take all of the short small flights, which effects how people get paid and what hours people work, as mentioned upthread by someone who said long flights boosted their monthly pay considerably. 

 

I'm sure that is in a list of other requirements.

 

So, I've been on two flights.... what does a flight attendant do then? On my flights, they started the pre-flight safety movie thing, they checked everyone had belts on at the right times, and then they served food and drink most of the flight. They also provide immediate first aid in an emergency. Other than that, what is it that they do? Am I missing a big task of being a flight attendant? Because, while alcohol is not the only part of their job, it sure appeared to be a large part to me. Once the flight took off, barring any emergency, that was basically the sum total of their job until landing time. You keep insisting it's only a small part but I don't understand what the 'large part' is other than being in place for an emergency, and making sure people have seatbelts on.

[Carol in Cal.]

To me this is an example of where a reasonable accommodation should be attempted.

That doesn't necessarily mean that one will be found, but religious freedom is an important American right, and it should be preserved, and so it's important to try to figure out a reasonable accommodation in this circumstance.  

 

I imagine that larger planes during the daytime on domestic flights would be easy-ish to provide backup from other attendents, plus would be planes with proportionately less alcohol consumption than the early morning or late evening flights that are more typical of business travel/adult travel without kids.  

 

I'm glad we don't have to be completely absolutist about this one way or another.

 

After all, it's not like she is apply for a job as a bartender.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

To me this is an example of where a reasonable accommodation should be attempted.

That doesn't necessarily mean that one will be found, but religious freedom is an important American right, and it should be preserved, and so it's important to try to figure out a reasonable accommodation in this circumstance.  

 

I imagine that larger planes during the daytime on domestic flights would be easy-ish to provide backup from other attendents, plus would be planes with proportionately less alcohol consumption than the early morning or late evening flights that are more typical of business travel/adult travel without kids.  

 

I'm glad we don't have to be completely absolutist about this one way or another.

 

After all, it's not like she is apply for a job as a bartender.

 

Do you fly often?  Have you noticed how drink service is done?  And it isn't like the drinks are preordered so they can break up the assignments before they start down the aisle.

 

And what if a Mormon flight attendant decided they couldn't serve drinks with caffeine?

 

A reasonable accommodation of employment which doesn't require drink service was offered.

[Arcadia]

Maybe we need a bartender per flight for economy/coach class and the bartender gets all the tips from serving alcohol. Then don't assign any flight attendant who doesn't want to serve alcohol to business class or first class.

 

Besides the legal drinking age is 18 in my home country and I have been carded on my national carrier for asking for sake when in my early 20s.

 

ETA:

Plenty ask for a glass of wine or a can of beer as a nightcap for long haul flight. The flight attendants are very busy serving red wine, white wine and beer.

[SKL]

She shouldn't take a job that is reasonably expected to involve serving alcohol.  Sorry.  Take a different job.

 

We've all had jobs where something or other became unbearable and we decided we needed to quit.  I never thought of it as a human rights violation that my employer didn't change its business to suit my personal beliefs.

 

Now if the airline had been one that traditionally never served alcohol and then they started serving it one day, I would have more sympathy.  I could see her asking someone else to do that part of the job while she looks for something more suitable.

[FaithManor]

To me this is an example of where a reasonable accommodation should be attempted.

That doesn't necessarily mean that one will be found, but religious freedom is an important American right, and it should be preserved, and so it's important to try to figure out a reasonable accommodation in this circumstance.  

 

I imagine that larger planes during the daytime on domestic flights would be easy-ish to provide backup from other attendents, plus would be planes with proportionately less alcohol consumption than the early morning or late evening flights that are more typical of business travel/adult travel without kids.  

 

I'm glad we don't have to be completely absolutist about this one way or another.

 

After all, it's not like she is apply for a job as a bartender.

Carol, I don't think it can be reasonably accommodated. Scheduling is very difficult already for F.A. I know someone in the industry and without accommodations, it's a crazy maker to be certain that they all get through their home ports every so many days, have the minimum sleep, to say nothing of covering flights when someone is out for illness, injury, or just plain life circumstances. There is high turn over in the field as well as it is very hard to make it conducive to family life. On top of which, when food and beverage service is done, the cart totally blocks the aisle. No F.A. knows ahead of time who is going to order an alcoholic beverage in advance so extricating one attendant and getting another into position is not necessarily an easy task. The only accommodation that would routinely work is to exempt her from food and beverage service period. Since that is a main duty of a flight attendant, I don't see why her employer should do that. They simply should not have to run a schedule that includes paying an extra F.A. on every one of her flights that has beverage service or schedule her to only work puddle jumper flights that have no service at all. And really, there only a handful of those one hour flights where no alcoholic beverages are available to the passengers.

 

Bottom line is that this is a very well known aspect of the job, and it is covered in the hiring materials so she knew going into it what the job requirements were. They offered her other positions which I think is more than generous. Really. If I were an employer, I would simply fire her period. I would not put her through F.A. training only to then go through this P.R. nightmare later on, and still try to accommodate her beliefs to then be further hassled because she is unwilling to accept my generous offer. I would fire her on the spot. I doubt she is going to last in the industry because no one will want to hire her now since she is being unreasonable.

 

What people need to understand is that no employer is required or should be compelled to change a job AFTER the employee accepts the job as described. The entire range of religious belief across the world is just huge, unbelievably huge. No employer anywhere should have to figure out how to accommodate it all. It is up to the employee to figure out how to balance work and faith.

 

Personally, I would think that if one cannot figure out that balance, then that person should either open a business as a sole proprietor and not an LLC or corporation so they have control of all of the aspects of business life, or go to work for a charity within their faith.

[kewb]

Unless you work for an airline that does not serve alcohol it is a known part of the job description.

I think the woman refusing to do a known portion of her job is unreasonable. If it was truly this big of an issue it should have been addressed during hiring.

Tbh, I think she is seeking her 15 minutes of fame.

[EmseB]

I probably seem like I'm picking on you, but I don't mean to.

 

I don't fly a lot, though I used to and I doubt this has changed.  It doesn't seem all that easy to me, to have one flight attendant opt out of serving drinks.  I am picturing the FA's going down the aisles with the cart - which takes up the whole aisle.  Sometimes there would be a pair of FA's, one for each side of the aisle.  Sometimes there would just be one.  No one could predict which seats would want to buy alcohol (except of course those with children, but then there are usually parents in the same row, and some of them could probably use one).  It seems like it would be a hassle to have one of the FA's not serving, and delay the drink service.  Which in turn keeps the aisle blocked longer, and annoys customers.  The last thing airlines want to do is annoy customers.

 

(As you can tell, all my experience is in coach. :-) )

 

Seems like (based on a pp), the other employees shouldn't have accommodated her on their own to begin with.  I hope that becomes part of the training in the future:  "If one of your fellow employees says he or she can't do part of the job for some reason, don't offer to do it for them." 

 

The last four-ish times I flew (this past summer), the FAs didn't use carts at all.  They would take orders, go to the galley, then come around with a tray that held 12-ish drinks (looked like a muffin tin) and pass them out.  These were not small planes, and one flight was 4+ hours.  Come to think of it, the mixed drinks came out separately all in one tray and someone else passed out the mini's and wine.  So maybe that's why it doesn't phase me to think that someone else could serve the alcohol.  It seems like on the flights I was on, if someone ordered a mixed drink or alcohol it was not in with the sodas, etc and had to be made separately anyway.

 

Anyway, I've googled a couple of "flight attendant responsibilities" and found PDFs where the serving of drinks is one line in a page of bullet points.

[Carol in Cal.]

Do you fly often?  Have you noticed how drink service is done?  And it isn't like the drinks are preordered so they can break up the assignments before they start down the aisle.

 

And what if a Mormon flight attendant decided they couldn't serve drinks with caffeine?

 

A reasonable accommodation of employment which doesn't require drink service was offered.

I do fly pretty often, and I stand by my comments.  On large domestic flights in the middle of the day, the attendants work in pairs, and it wouldn't, in my view, be all that hard to accommodate this without making a big fuss about it.  But maybe it would be too difficult to make it work.

 

And I didn't say it should be rule, just that an attempt at accommodation should be made.  It might not succeed.  But freedom of religious expression is important enough to at least try.  That's my point.

[EmseB]

. No employer anywhere should have to figure out how to accommodate it all. It is up to the employee to figure out how to balance work and faith.

 

 

Sorry, but that's not what case law says in the U.S.  Employers do have to make what is considered a reasonable accommodation.

 

In this case, maybe the courts will say that her working a desk job is a reasonable accommodation.  But to say that someone should just open their own business or not work anywhere because of their religion is not the legal climate we have or perhaps even want to have.  To ask everyone to shut up about their beliefs or stay home or have it all in a private club never to see the public square may be ideal for some, but it doesn't ever really end well as far as societies go.

[Word Nerd]

Unless you work for an airline that does not serve alcohol it is a known part of the job description.

I think the woman refusing to do a known portion of her job is unreasonable. If it was truly this big of an issue it should have been addressed during hiring.

Tbh, I think she is seeking her 15 minutes of fame.

 

From what I understand it wasn't an issue until earlier this year when she found out that her faith prohibited serving and drinking alcohol (from the link in the OP).

[marbel]

I do fly pretty often, and I stand by my comments.  On large domestic flights in the middle of the day, the attendants work in pairs, and it wouldn't, in my view, be all that hard to accommodate this without making a big fuss about it.  But maybe it would be too difficult to make it work.

 

And I didn't say it should be rule, just that an attempt at accommodation should be made.  It might not succeed.  But freedom of religious expression is important enough to at least try.  That's my point.

 

I suspect part of the problem about granting this particular accommodation is coverage.  If one of the crew is out sick,  they have to be able to stick anyone in the spot.  It would be a logistical nightmare to have to check to see who can and who cannot serve alcohol (or whatever).  They have to have people who can perform all the duties, not just some.

 

But I saw something else last night (I can't find the article now) that said when this first came up, the woman went to her supervisor to let him/her know she couldn't serve alcohol any longer, and the supervisor suggested she see about trading duties with some of the other FA's.  I think that might end up causing trouble for the airline and/or that particular supervisor.  Probably one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but maybe isn't now that this has become a problem. 

 

 

[Guest]

She's being plumb ridiculous and I think she is going to live to regret this very, very much. Were she concerned about it religiously, she needs to be in touch with an excellent *American* scholar. And she needs to quit. Her efforts irt alcohol would be better served in a volunteer capacity and her efforts irt "religious liberty" would be better served by taking the liberty to get another job, and to address the comments about her hijab (perfectly acceptable) and her "book of foreign writings" (which is really, really stupid thing to say). I am not impressed.

 

In any case, a one (or two or three)-off ridiculous lawsuit doesn't portend that the country is on the verge of descending into madness.

[FaithManor]

granted I don't drink (so I barely pay attention) - but that seems pretty average.  at least for the restaurants I frequent.   (I've seen mixed drinks on the menu which are more.  and that doesn't include the wines . . . . )

 

but I do recall the "celebration" dinner we attended with dh's coworkers and they all spent 50% more PER PERSON, on drinks than the food.

Yah, I was just thinking about a niece and her hubby who went on a joint vacation in the Caribbean with two other couples and between the six of them, drank $150.00 worth of alcohol on the plane.

 

Same niece when she got married put $7500.00 in her budget for beverages including alcohol for a reception for 220 people, and the crowd drank every drop and closed the bar before the reception ended. That's a lot of liquor money. I am no prude and do not judge people for choosing to drink socially, I just expect social responsibility so don't get drunk and behave like an ass and throw up all over the place, and whatever you do don't DRIVE ANYTHING, not so much as even a go-cart! But wowza! I also would not personally choose to spend the down payment on a starter house in this area for alcoholic refreshments for my guests either!

[EmseB]

 

So, I've been on two flights.... what does a flight attendant do then? On my flights, they started the pre-flight safety movie thing, they checked everyone had belts on at the right times, and then they served food and drink most of the flight. They also provide immediate first aid in an emergency. Other than that, what is it that they do? Am I missing a big task of being a flight attendant? Because, while alcohol is not the only part of their job, it sure appeared to be a large part to me. Once the flight took off, barring any emergency, that was basically the sum total of their job until landing time. You keep insisting it's only a small part but I don't understand what the 'large part' is other than being in place for an emergency, and making sure people have seatbelts on.

 

Yes, they rarely have to use their training as it pertains to passenger safety and emergencies.  However, they are not glorified waiters with a little bit of training on how to secure an airplane thrown in on the side.  Especially not since 9/11.  That is the appearance of their job to the general public because it is the most visible on any flight, you are correct.  However, FA's have real authority over you (as a passenger) and their training is not (primarily) about how to serve drinks.  Otherwise, they could just hire waiters and waitresses and bartenders.

 

Look, there are plenty of jobs where there is 90% of sit down time and the most visible aspects of their job are the most superfluous.

[Carol in Cal.]

Again, I'm not saying that the airline *must* accommodate her.  What I'm saying is that that should be tried first.  I'd say that about just about any religious issue, because as an American I believe that freedom of religious expression is the highest priority item in the Bill of Rights.

[Truscifi]

People keep saying the airline should make a reasonable accommodation, like they just summarily fired her. They didn't. They allowed the employees to try arranging the duties so she didn't have to serve alcohol until an employee complained. Then they offered her other positions where she wouldn't have to serve alcohol but she refused. She wants an accommodation the airline does not feel is reasonable and will not accept any other.

 

Now the courts will decide the issue.

 

 

[ErinE]

I do fly pretty often, and I stand by my comments.  On large domestic flights in the middle of the day, the attendants work in pairs, and it wouldn't, in my view, be all that hard to accommodate this without making a big fuss about it.  But maybe it would be too difficult to make it work.

 

And I didn't say it should be rule, just that an attempt at accommodation should be made.  It might not succeed.  But freedom of religious expression is important enough to at least try.  That's my point.

 

http://www.expressjet.com/about/our-fleet/

 

If you look at ExpressJet's fleet, most of the airplanes are regional jets. Based on my experience with RJs, I'd say there's probably only two jets she can fly with another flight attendant, the 76-passenger and 65-passenger planes. The 37- and 50-passenger planes usually have only one flight attendant. Attending the small planes is hard work. The attendant rarely gets a chance to sit down because he or she is doing all the work alone.

 

She may have been trading with other flight attendants to get scheduled on the two larger planes, which is unfair to the other flight attendants. The person who filed the complaint may have been bumped from the larger jets to make the religious accommodation. Given what I've learned from conversations with flight attendants (I spend a lot of time on planes), those are probably the more desired postings. From her end, it may have worked beautifully, but for all the other flight attendants, her refusal to work the smaller, less desirable planes made their own work environment more difficult. I'd be upset, too.

[Bluegoat]

I think that it may be that she can't reasonably do her job in this case.  I am assuming that her coworkers aren't just being jerks, and it is possible they are.  The fact that the one who complained was upset about a headscarf isn't comforting.

 

However, I really object to people characterizing it as a matter of other workers having to pick up her slack.  For one thing, there is an implication, a totally inappropriate one, that she was lazy or trying to get out of work.  THis kind of thing is also often used to denigrate new mothers who are tired at work, parents who need to pick up kids, dads who take legal parental leave, people with health problems who take time off or accommodations for a disability. 

 

And - we don't actually know that she wasn't picking up other tasks that other people would have been doing if they weren't serving drinks.

 

THe other thing I would say is that I think it is always a good idea to take anything employers say about a particular aspect of a job being necessary with a grain of salt.  The fact is that employers have the power in the relationship, which is why it is necessary to give employees protections in the first place.  Plenty of businesses have used excuses to get rid of employees that they just didn't want to bother making space for.  Sure - if you can't work Sunday, don't take a job as a weekend store clerk, that is dishonest and putting an unreasonable burden on the employer.  But it is not the same thing for a store to say it cannot accommodate a full time store clerk who has a weekly religious observance.

 

I also think that as individual workers, we should as persons try and accommodate others if we can, whether or not it is a matter of it being legally required.  We all need that at some point - when I was younger I was in a job that involved some lifting, most of whch I did because the other person I worked with was older. 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 From her end, it may have worked beautifully, but for all the other flight attendants, her refusal to work the smaller, less desirable planes made their own work environment more difficult. I'd be upset, too.

Right, and maybe accommodation wouldn't actually work in this case.

My point is only that it needs to be tried (and it has been in this case), that things are not completely black and white, and that freedom of religious expression is an important right in our country.  It's not legally or ethically as simple as, "She won't do the whole job so she had better resign."  

[Pam in CT]

OK, I've hesitated for a full 24 hours before adding another freedom-of-religion-on-a-plane case study into our slippery slope stew.  Because while such issues are really divisive within Judaism (hard to convey, actually, just how divisive), there's a deep reluctance to air the dirty linen.

 

When A Plane Seat Next To A Woman Is Against Orthodox Faith

 

 

But I'm tossing it in, because I think some of the slippery slope implications of these freedom-to-practice-religion-as-I-see-fit issues may be easier to see, when it's a minority faith tradition.  What is reasonable?  Should the whole flight be held up, because one man refuses to sit next to a woman, because of his sincerely held religious beliefs?  Should the woman who draws the seat next to him be compelled to move?    To an equivalent seat? Interior seat when she'd booked an aisle?

 

(It's not hypothetical, BTW.  I have personally been involved in one such kerfuffle and witnessed another, and I don't even fly very regularly.)

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I do fly pretty often, and I stand by my comments. On large domestic flights in the middle of the day, the attendants work in pairs, and it wouldn't, in my view, be all that hard to accommodate this without making a big fuss about it. But maybe it would be too difficult to make it work.

 

And I didn't say it should be rule, just that an attempt at accommodation should be made. It might not succeed. But freedom of religious expression is important enough to at least try. That's my point.

And they did try it. And the other flight attendants complained.

[FaithManor]

Sorry, but that's not what case law says in the U.S.  Employers do have to make what is considered a reasonable accommodation.

 

In this case, maybe the courts will say that her working a desk job is a reasonable accommodation.  But to say that someone should just open their own business or not work anywhere because of their religion is not the legal climate we have or perhaps even want to have.  To ask everyone to shut up about their beliefs or stay home or have it all in a private club never to see the public square may be ideal for some, but it doesn't ever really end well as far as societies go.

But that is not a reasonable accommodation. This is a regular, normal part of the job. If we allow this kind of thing no one would do any work. I can think of hundreds of scenarios in which employers would be caught in a net of crazy trying to make "reasonable accommodations" for every kind of thing. Think about the dress restrictions, the dietary restrictions, the any number of disallowed activities, ...Reasonable is actually fairly narrow, and does not involve putting undo stress on anyone else in the workplace, or creating scheduling nightmares, or making the workplace stressful or hostile for anyone else, or leaving the employee's customers un-served or discriminated against, or.....

 

You don't get to enter into a contract with an employer to do a specific job and then decide you refuse to do that job but want to still earn a paycheck for not doing it! I at least know of zero local courts that would uphold such a thing. Don't take the job if you aren't capable of doing it.

 

This is not a case of someone being targeted for say Sunday shift work year in and year out without ever having a Sunday off while everyone else always get Sundays off because the boss doesn't like Protestants or whatever. This woman is not being targeted for discrimination. She is just refusing to do her work, work that she KNEW entailed serving alcohol before she was hired.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sorry, but that's not what case law says in the U.S. Employers do have to make what is considered a reasonable accommodation.

 

In this case, maybe the courts will say that her working a desk job is a reasonable accommodation. But to say that someone should just open their own business or not work anywhere because of their religion is not the legal climate we have or perhaps even want to have. To ask everyone to shut up about their beliefs or stay home or have it all in a private club never to see the public square may be ideal for some, but it doesn't ever really end well as far as societies go.

And what constitutes a reasonable accommodation is outlined by the EEOC. In general, removing duties of the job that then have to be performed by another employee is not considered a reasonable accommodation.

[Bluegoat]

But that is not a reasonable accommodation. This is a regular, normal part of the job. If we allow this kind of thing no one would do any work. I can think of hundreds of scenarios in which employers would be caught in a net of crazy trying to make "reasonable accommodations" for every kind of thing. Think about the dress restrictions, the dietary restrictions, the any number of disallowed activities, ...Reasonable is actually fairly narrow, and does not involve putting undo stress on anyone else in the workplace, or creating scheduling nightmares, or making the workplace stressful or hostile for anyone else, or leaving the employee's customers un-served or discriminated against, or.....

 

You don't get to enter into a contract with an employer to do a specific job and then decide you refuse to do that job but want to still earn a paycheck for not doing it! I at least know of zero local courts that would uphold such a thing. Don't take the job if you aren't capable of doing it.

 

This is not a case of someone being targeted for say Sunday shift work year in and year out without ever having a Sunday off while everyone else always get Sundays off because the boss doesn't like Protestants or whatever. This woman is not being targeted for discrimination. She is just refusing to do her work, work that she KNEW entailed serving alcohol before she was hired.

 

Your bar for causing inconvenience seems to be pretty low - almost "no real inconvenience at all."  These are the same kinds of things people said about mandated maternity or parental leaves - too hard on other workers, too hard on employers. 

 

I think the likelihood of insisting on a serious effort at accommodation (and in this case I think that happened) resulting in no one doing any work is pretty unlikely. 

 

It's a very interesting phenomena that liberal democracies, which have as their basis the idea that people should be able to actively pursue their personal belief systems to the greatest degree possible, including in public life, seem to have this tendency to skew to the approach of the soviet-style system of making religion entirely private, and not to be given a place in the public sphere.   

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Your bar for causing inconvenience seems to be pretty low - almost "no real inconvenience at all." These are the same kinds of things people said about mandated maternity or parental leaves - too hard on other workers, too hard on employers.

 

I think the likelihood of insisting on a serious effort at accommodation (and in this case I think that happened) resulting in no one doing any work is pretty unlikely.

 

It's a very interesting phenomena that liberal democracies, which have as their basis the idea that people should be able to actively pursue their personal belief systems to the greatest degree possible, including in public life, seem to have this tendency to screw to the approach of the soviet-style system of making religion entirely private, and not to be given a place in the public sphere.

A reasonable accommodation generally can't have a demonstrable negative impact on efficiency, cost (or loss of profit), or cause an undue hardship on other employees.

Most often accommodations are for dress/appearance, and after that group scheduling is the most prevalent. Even with scheduling, if the accommodation requires other employees have to take on the entire burden of the least desirable shifts, the accommodation would not be considered reasonable (failing the undue hardship test).

[FaithManor]

I agree with your interpretation ChocolateReign, and given the wide array of religious beliefs and practices in this nation, it is reasonable to assume that accommodating them all would create chaos in the work place.

 

For a small airline with a limited crew, this woman is not being reasonable. It has been established that this is a small, budget airline.

 

And what about food service, if they continue to allow this, when does she then refuse to serve food because it is pork or .......? The undue hardship test must also be reasonable for the employer as well.

 

Again, it's about faith and work balance, which is more the responsibility of the employee that holds the belief than the employer who does not.

[Carol in Cal.]

And they did try it. And the other flight attendants complained.

Are you accusing me of saying otherwise?  I never have.  Hello?

[Bluegoat]

A reasonable accommodation generally can't have a demonstrable negative impact on efficiency, cost (or loss of profit), or cause an undue hardship on other employees.

Most often accommodations are for dress/appearance, and after that group scheduling is the most prevalent. Even with scheduling, if the accommodation requires other employees have to take on the entire burden of the least desirable shifts, the accommodation would not be considered reasonable (failing the undue hardship test).

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with your examples, but I do have a problem with the idea that it cannot have "demonstrable negative effect. "  That really seems to be a way of saying that it isn't important enough to be something that costs money.  This has always and everywhere been the complaint of employers who don't want to accommodate women, or family life, or disabilities, or really anything they don't have to.

 

But, in Canada the bar seems to be set higher  - employers have to show significant issues are caused by accommodation, as in, they can't offer the service, they will go under, or it won't be safe.  My dh has a coworker who is deaf for example, and although she works alone much of the time, she is provided a translator at meetings.

 

I can't say I prefer the American approach.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't necessarily have a problem with your examples, but I do have a problem with the idea that it cannot have "demonstrable negative effect. " That really seems to be a way of saying that it isn't important enough to be something that costs money. This has always and everywhere been the complaint of employers who don't want to accommodate women, or family life, or disabilities, or really anything they don't have to.

 

But, in Canada the bar seems to be set higher - employers have to show significant issues are caused by accommodation, as in, they can't offer the service, they will go under, or it won't be safe. My dh has a coworker who is deaf for example, and although she works alone much of the time, she is provided a translator at meetings.

 

I can't say I prefer the American approach.

I do. A business exists to make money, and inflicting excessive religious accommodations on an employer can be burdensome. And unlike maternity/paternity leave, it is ongoing.

[Carol in Cal.]

The thing that the ADA demonstrated is that lots of times accommodations help a lot more people than anticipated or planned.

 

For instance, cut downs at curbs help people pushing strollers or pulling wagons or shopping carts or people with bad knees who can still walk but can't handle stairs in addition to helping people with wheelchairs.  

[EmseB]

But that is not a reasonable accommodation. This is a regular, normal part of the job. If we allow this kind of thing no one would do any work. I can think of hundreds of scenarios in which employers would be caught in a net of crazy trying to make "reasonable accommodations" for every kind of thing. Think about the dress restrictions, the dietary restrictions, the any number of disallowed activities, ...Reasonable is actually fairly narrow, and does not involve putting undo stress on anyone else in the workplace, or creating scheduling nightmares, or making the workplace stressful or hostile for anyone else, or leaving the employee's customers un-served or discriminated against, or.....

 

You don't get to enter into a contract with an employer to do a specific job and then decide you refuse to do that job but want to still earn a paycheck for not doing it! I at least know of zero local courts that would uphold such a thing. Don't take the job if you aren't capable of doing it.

 

This is not a case of someone being targeted for say Sunday shift work year in and year out without ever having a Sunday off while everyone else always get Sundays off because the boss doesn't like Protestants or whatever. This woman is not being targeted for discrimination. She is just refusing to do her work, work that she KNEW entailed serving alcohol before she was hired.

 

I guess we just differ on what's reasonable.  Serving alcohol is a part of the job.  It's not the job.  Again, if she were refusing to do something that interfered with her ability to ensure passenger safety or secure the cabin I would totally agree with you as those are her primary responsibilities.  As gardenmom and I have been discussing, I think this has a large part to do with how you view the actual job of FA's.  If serving alcohol were an essential or even primary part of her job I would totally agree with you.  If she was a bartender, I would totally agree with you.  If she was refusing to touch men, I'd agree with you.  If she was refusing to do any work on the plane, I'd agree with you.  If she was asking to wear garments which impeded her ability to move about the cabin in an emergency, I'd agree with you.

 

I don't know that she isn't being targeted for discrimination, I'm not sure how you do unless you know those personally involved.

 

Unless I'm on a very tiny jet with one FA, I have not ever seen all FA's serving drinks on board.  Even with two on board, I see one serving, one passing out peanuts and picking up garbage.  It seems reasonable to me she could be the one with snacks and the other could be the one with drinks.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

Unless I'm on a very tiny jet with one FA, I have not ever seen all FA's serving drinks on board.  Even with two on board, I see one serving, one passing out peanuts and picking up garbage.  It seems reasonable to me she could be the one with snacks and the other could be the one with drinks.

 

But perhaps when it's a small crew, they can't afford to have even one person who can't do one or more of the tasks.  Everyone has to be able to do all the tasks in order for the system to work, even if one day, or some days, not all the people have to do all the tasks.

 

Can the FA pick up the trash if it's been used for alcohol?  (Rhetorical question, but I am curious.  It's not a gotcha; I don't know the answer. But it seems reasonable to think that a person who can't touch a container with alcohol in it to serve it, can't touch the used glass either, because there is likely a drop or two still in it.) 

 

[EmseB]

I agree with your interpretation ChocolateReign, and given the wide array of religious beliefs and practices in this nation, it is reasonable to assume that accommodating them all would create chaos in the work place.

 

It really, really doesn't.  I have worked with people who are a wide variety of faiths, as well as a wide variety of family structures requiring accommodations.  It isn't always easy, but it's hardly chaos.  Most of it is voluntary, friendly agreement between employees.  I'll take the Saturday shift if you can grab my Sunday shift.  I'll cover the front desk if you want to work in the back.

 

Think of a school classroom with IEPs and 504s.  It's managed.  It does make some things harder for a teacher, but it's hardly chaos, even if on paper it looks crazy.  But what's the alternative?

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm reminded of the excellent book "The Search For God At Harvard".  The author, an observant, Orthodox Jew, talks about the challenges of being a reporter that mostly declines to work on the Jewish Sabbath; i.e. from Friday night through late Saturday afternoon.  This guy is a brilliant writer, and the paper gained a great deal by accommodating him.  We would be poorer if we lacked his perspective.  

[EmseB]

But perhaps when it's a small crew, they can't afford to have even one person who can't do one or more of the tasks.  Everyone has to be able to do all the tasks in order for the system to work, even if one day, or some days, not all the people have to do all the tasks.

 

Can the FA pick up the trash if it's been used for alcohol?  (Rhetorical question, but I am curious.  It's not a gotcha; I don't know the answer. But it seems reasonable to think that a person who can't touch a container with alcohol in it to serve it, can't touch the used glass either, because there is likely a drop or two still in it.) 

 

 

And that's where the courts come in.  I see what you're saying, and perhaps selling alcohol is absolutely essential and it can't work.

 

What I object to is a blanket idea of "She can't do this so she should quit" instead of making some effort to help her.  And totally discounting the idea that perhaps someone complained because of her specific religion seems unwise as well.  One guy has a beef with working with Muslims and she's out because everyone says, "Well, she should quit anyway."

[marbel]

And that's where the courts come in.  I see what you're saying, and perhaps selling alcohol is absolutely essential and it can't work.

 

What I object to is a blanket idea of "She can't do this so she should quit" instead of making some effort to help her.  And totally discounting the idea that perhaps someone complained because of her specific religion seems unwise as well.  One guy has a beef with working with Muslims and she's out because everyone says, "Well, she should quit anyway."

 

Oh, that part bothered me too.  "Foreign writings" what the heck does that mean anyway?  

 

 

[justasque]

I would add that my understanding the the FA job is that there is often a very complex process wherein FAs "bid" for the jobs on the next month's roster, with those having senority having priority for the jobs they want.  In addition, there is often not a regular schedule where FAs Sally and Sue work the NY to LA route and Jean and Jane work the FL to NY route.  Instead, crews are mix-and-match all the time based on who bid for which route each month.  So it's not a case where the same few people work together all the time, have a relationship, and can work out a general routine.  Rather, it's not uncommon to meet your co-workers when you step on the plane to begin the flight.  

 

In addition, on some flights the FAs are busy all the time.  It's seatbelt check, then drinks, then snacks, then drinks, then clean-up, then seatbelt check, then landing.  Often a particular FA covers a particular section of seats.  To have one FA go through and only take the non-alcoholic orders, then another go through for the alcohol would be considerably less efficient.  Remember that in the case of the drink cart, both kinds of drinks are stocked in the same place (the cart) and in some cases are the same drink (orange juice or cranberry juice with vodka, for example).  The system is standardized so that each mix-and-match crew can just get on with it, rather than having to figure out a new work routine every time they start a new flight with a new set of co-workers.  

And of course there is the possibility that a particular plane has only one FA, or has no FAs who will serve alcohol.  At some point the customer has the expectation (not the right, obviously) to be served alcohol.  It's not part of plane travel for me, but there are people who rely on a bit of alcohol to help squash their anxiety about flying.

I am all for accommodations for religious concerns; I think it's the right thing to do wherever possible.  But in this particular case, I think it would be difficult to accomplish in a long-term, reliable way.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The airline DID attempt accommodations, including not having her serve alcohol. It didn't work as other employees complained.

[Bluegoat]

I do. A business exists to make money, and inflicting excessive religious accommodations on an employer can be burdensome. And unlike maternity/paternity leave, it is ongoing.

 

Well,that is one way to look at it.  Certainly it seems to be the American way.  But then, you don't have dad's with 8 months of parental leave, or even moms for the most part.  Principles, be they fair wages or religious or other kinds of accommodation, or disabilities, or whatever, don't count when it comes to capital-owners making money. 

 

I tend to think that if a business can't make money without compromising the people it employs, it isn't a good business.

[SKL]

You have to draw the line somewhere.  Things are always very tight on airplanes - space, crew flexibility, time.  Accommodations are going to be harder to give in that environment than most others.  People need to accept that and deal with it.

[SKL]

Well,that is one way to look at it.  Certainly it seems to be the American way.  But then, you don't have dad's with 8 months of parental leave, or even moms for the most part.  Principles, be they far wages or religious or other kinds of accommodation, or disabilities, or whatever, don't count when it comes to capital-owners making money. 

 

I tend to think that if a business can't make money without compromising the people it employs, it isn't a good business.

 

There are lots of businesses that bend over backwards for their employees in many ways, and there are plenty of US laws forcing employee considerations for those employers that wouldn't do it on their own.  But a small business or small flight crew can't accommodate every possible difference.

 

If you had to take every foreseeable difference into account in structuring a business, you would probably give up before you ever started.  And forego an opportunity to create any new jobs.

 

The US likes to encourage people to start and build businesses, because they create net benefits to society.  You could say that is the American way.  If that offends you, I'm sorry.  Actually, no I'm not.

[Bluegoat]

You have to draw the line somewhere.  Things are always very tight on airplanes - space, crew flexibility, time.  Accommodations are going to be harder to give in that environment than most others.  People need to accept that and deal with it.

 

Which means you have to argue the circumstances, which many people have done.  I think they have made a fairly convincing argument, though there is always the question of whether the system itself is actually a problem that should be looked at. 

 

Saying that accommodation only needs to be superficial, that employers get to set all the conditions of jobs, people should not expect others to have to change in any meaningful way, etc, is not making that argument - it is just saying that religious liberty will, at best, be given no more than lip service when it really comes down to it, so don't ask.

[Word Nerd]

Do FAs have to be 21? Just curious whether anyone younger than that is hired and how they handle with it, since they wouldn't be able to legally serve alcohol. Or maybe I'm making an incorrect assumption about that. Off to Google it...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well,that is one way to look at it. Certainly it seems to be the American way. But then, you don't have dad's with 8 months of parental leave, or even moms for the most part. Principles, be they fair wages or religious or other kinds of accommodation, or disabilities, or whatever, don't count when it comes to capital-owners making money.

 

I tend to think that if a business can't make money without compromising the people it employs, it isn't a good business.

But we do have religious accommodations. Reasonable ones.

And we do have accommodations for disabilities. Reasonable ones.

[Bluegoat]

There are lots of businesses that bend over backwards for their employees in many ways, and there are plenty of US laws forcing employee considerations for those employers that wouldn't do it on their own.  But a small business or small flight crew can't accommodate every possible difference.

 

If you had to take every foreseeable difference into account in structuring a business, you would probably give up before you ever started.  And forego an opportunity to create any new jobs.

 

The US likes to encourage people to start and build businesses, because they create net benefits to society.  You could say that is the American way.  If that offends you, I'm sorry.  Actually, no I'm not.

 

Individual businesses do all kinds of good things, and good for them.

 

Many other countries expect, legally, far more from employers, as far as taking care of employees, and yet that have successful businesses and economies - sometimes more than the US does.  So it is a little difficult for those of us who have lived in such places, and see the benefits for society along with the fact that business still survives, to think it will mean the end of a healthy economic life.