Welcome to the Slippery Slope

[goldberry]

Here's a question then... are employers that require workers to "be available for any shift" not being accommodating to workers who need certain times off for religious services?  My faith doesn't observe Sabbath, but does place a priority on worship, which is at certain times.  So an employee could work on Sunday, but not on Sunday, say from 1-4 every single week.

 

Most people I know like this would just not even apply for a job that said "must be available any shift".  But what if they did, and were hired, but then said, "oh, but I need off Sunday afternoons, and since it is a religious reason, you should accommodate me." Assume a situation where there are other workers working a variety of shifts, and it might indeed be possible to schedule this one employee off on Sunday afternoons.  But is that really reasonable?  When the employer posted a job that said "any shift"?

 

I don't know... Personally I would not even apply for a job like that, since in my mind, my faith would prevent me from being available when the employer wanted, which was "anytime".  I always wonder though, about the "available any shift" requirement and religious implications.  That's different from a job that says, "Hours are Sundays 9-5."    

 

In the case of the flight attendant, she was offered accommodations.  She didn't like the ones that were offered.  The accommodation she liked (switching duties with other flight attendants) was tried and resulted in complaints from the other flight attendants, so she can't even argue that they never tried it.  She's done.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'd still like to see the reference for this assertion. It seems it is a critical piece of information that would be useful to the courts in determining if the airline made attempts to treat her fairly.

It was in one of the links earlier today in this thread.

[happi duck]

From what I read it sounds like this issue arose from her just recently finding out that serving alcohol was not allowed.

[marbel]

Here's a question then... are employers that require workers to "be available for any shift" not being accommodating to workers who need certain times off for religious services?  My faith doesn't observe Sabbath, but does place a priority on worship, which is at certain times.  So an employee could work on Sunday, but not on Sunday, say from 1-4 every single week.

 

Most people I know like this would just not even apply for a job that said "must be available any shift".  But what if they did, and were hired, but then said, "oh, but I need off Sunday afternoons, and since it is a religious reason, you should accommodate me." Assume a situation where there are other workers working a variety of shifts, and it might indeed be possible to schedule this one employee off on Sunday afternoons.  But is that really reasonable?  When the employer posted a job that said "any shift"?

 

<snip>

 

I have been thinking about this a lot myself, as I have kids entering the workforce and they would prefer not to work on Sunday.  I mentioned it on another thread recently but I don't think it went anywhere, or I lost track of the thread. :-) 

 

My local public library's application states that employees must be available to work weekends.  So I'd assume there's no point in applying there.  But I think there would be no harm in a person applying but stating up front that they can't work on Sunday, rather than waiting to be hired to say so.

 

My daughter recently got a job at a coffee shop, part time. When asked (during the interview process) what days she could not work, she listed her two school days (community college) and Sunday. She got the job and Sunday has not been an issue so far.  But I know of other people who have applied for jobs only to be told they could not be promised Sundays off.  In some cases they didn't take the job, in other cases they did.

 

It seems to me that in the US, there are plenty of people who don't care about Sunday worship/Sabbath so it seems that in many cases, it would be an easy accommodation.  Maybe not at a very small business with few employees.  Certainly at a large concern (I'm thinking in particular of a grocery store here who will not even entertain the notion of a weekly set day off for an employee) with a lot of employees it seems it might be fairly easy.   And with computers doing the scheduling... even easier.  

 

But I am not in business so I don't know.

 

It does occur to me that Jews have long had to compromise their Sabbath in US culture.  But see there - my kids would be fine working Saturday, surely there are many who would like Saturday off but would work Sunday. 

 

I don't think there is any way an employer can legally ask why someone would want a Sunday off though, is there?  I mean, people might want it off so they can stay home and watch pro football.  Nothing wrong with that, but it muddies up the water - which may be why employers won't even try to do it.

 

[Dmmetler]

FWIW, the best company my DH ever has worked for was a small software firm that was owned by a Jewish gentleman-and who realized that by giving employees the flexibility to set their own scheduled days off/holidays, he could get 365 day/year tech support coverage quite easily. The Jewish Employees couldn't cover Friday nights or Saturdays or Jewish holidays, but could work Sundays, Christmas, Easter, etc. The people with kids in school needed school holidays, but single folks often preferred to take their vacations when things weren't crowded with kids. Stuff like that. It worked.

 

Two corporate acquisitions later and scheduling is something that has to be bid for and negotiated and is a real pain. And a big part of it is that they no longer have no set holidays-everyone has Christmas off, for example. Which means that if they NEED coverage on Christmas, someone has to cover on a day "off"-and that employees who would just as soon work Christmas and have another day off often have to take a vacation day rather than just shifting their days around.

 

 

[Dmmetler]

FWIW, the best company my DH ever has worked for was a small software firm that was owned by a Jewish gentleman-and who realized that by giving employees the flexibility to set their own scheduled days off/holidays, he could get 365 day/year tech support coverage quite easily. The Jewish Employees couldn't cover Friday nights or Saturdays or Jewish holidays, but could work Sundays, Christmas, Easter, etc. The people with kids in school needed school holidays, but single folks often preferred to take their vacations when things weren't crowded with kids. Stuff like that. It worked.

 

Two corporate acquisitions later and scheduling is something that has to be bid for and negotiated and is a real pain. And a big part of it is that they no longer have no set holidays-everyone has Christmas off, for example. Which means that if they NEED coverage on Christmas, someone has to cover on a day "off"-and that employees who would just as soon work Christmas and have another day off often have to take a vacation day rather than just shifting their days around.

 

 

[Arcadia]

My local public library's application states that employees must be available to work weekends. So I'd assume there's no point in applying there. But I think there would be no harm in a person applying but stating up front that they can't work on Sunday, rather than waiting to be hired to say so.

 

Most of my local libraries open on Sunday afternoons at 1pm. Some librarians go for the morning service and come to work after that. The library has less than half strength for staff usually on weekends so 1 librarian at the counter instead of 3 for example.

 

My mom was a RN. The nurses would mutually swap shifts to attend the church service they prefer.

 

ETA:

There was a family owned dept store that didn't open on Sunday because the owners are christians. Unfortunately retail business was so bad at their city/downtown store that they open at 12pm instead for Sundays. The revenue stream was just a lot higher on Sundays for that location which is a prime tourist belt.

[TechWife]

Here's a question then... are employers that require workers to "be available for any shift" not being accommodating to workers who need certain times off for religious services?  My faith doesn't observe Sabbath, but does place a priority on worship, which is at certain times.  So an employee could work on Sunday, but not on Sunday, say from 1-4 every single week.

 

Most people I know like this would just not even apply for a job that said "must be available any shift".  But what if they did, and were hired, but then said, "oh, but I need off Sunday afternoons, and since it is a religious reason, you should accommodate me." Assume a situation where there are other workers working a variety of shifts, and it might indeed be possible to schedule this one employee off on Sunday afternoons.  But is that really reasonable?  When the employer posted a job that said "any shift"?

 

I don't know... Personally I would not even apply for a job like that, since in my mind, my faith would prevent me from being available when the employer wanted, which was "anytime".  I always wonder though, about the "available any shift" requirement and religious implications.  That's different from a job that says, "Hours are Sundays 9-5."    

 

In the case of the flight attendant, she was offered accommodations.  She didn't like the ones that were offered.  The accommodation she liked (switching duties with other flight attendants) was tried and resulted in complaints from the other flight attendants, so she can't even argue that they never tried it.  She's done.

 

I had a really long answer typed out and then my computer lost it's connection as I was submitting it. 

 

I think the answer to this question lies in context. It is much harder for an employer who has only three employees to grant that request. What if all three have that same conviction? By saying that the person needs to be available for all shifts, then the employer can then schedule them on a rotating basis, say requiring them to work every third Sunday. If the request of one employee were to be granted, it would be an "undue burden" on the other two employees to require them to work more frequently on Sundays as it would prevent them from also practicing their religion. 

 

It is easier for those who have a larger number of employees to grant this request. If they have fifty employees, the request by three of them to not work on Sundays is easier to grant because statistically, there is a greater likelihood that there is someone in their employee pool who is willing to work those hours. In this case, it doesn't place an undue burden on the employer or the other employees to grant the request. 

 

This article (linked by someone else above) does a really good job of lining out some of the practicalities that are inherent in applying the law. It does seem as if the law was intended to be applied on a context dependent basis as well as affecting company policy. 

[TechWife]

It was in one of the links earlier today in this thread.

 

Which one? I sincerely can't find it. 

[Word Nerd]

Yes, I realized that and did a thorough search for Express Jet. I'm simply not turning up any information on the airline having offered her other positions. 

 

I realize the employer can't comment and hasn't so far, so I'm wondering if the info came from a reliable source (not questioning your reliability, but that of your source). 

 

I can't find any confirmation of that claim either. The only place I've seen it is this thread.

[marbel]

I can't find any confirmation of that claim either. The only place I've seen it is this thread.

 

I've looked around a good bit too and I can't find it in any of the news stories.  It's possible it was in one and then edited out.  Otherwise I don't know where people are getting that information.   I'd love to see it.

 

[TechWife]

I've looked around a good bit too and I can't find it in any of the news stories.  It's possible it was in one and then edited out.  Otherwise I don't know where people are getting that information.   I'd love to see it.

 

 

That's entirely possible, although reputable news sources usually place an editorial comment when they do this. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's entirely possible, although reputable news sources usually place an editorial comment when they do this. 

 

They don't always, as I have learned to my dismay.  If I get time I will dig through the links and see if I can find it.

[Anne in CA]

Except there are more positions on an airplane than just serving drinks.  And serving drinks is not the primary responsibility of a flight attendant.  I can see I'm in the minority, I just don't think it's unreasonable for a flight attendant to not serve alcohol.

So... I have worked in hospitality for a long time and it would not be easy to work with someone who did not serve alcohol on a plane. When there are so few flight attendants on a flight it would be a BIG imposition for all the people working not to be interchangeable. And... does she not pick up the empty drinks either? That is 1/2 of serving them.

 

Also, if you accomodate this sort of silliness then all the RESPONSIBLE people who are not flight attendants because they don't want to serve alcohol will apply and demand that they also not serve alcohol either, making it a big headache for the scheduler to put people together who can serve/ won't serve alcohol.

 

This gal is a special snowflake. But you can't have everything your own way, and that seems to be what she wants. She honestly doesn't see why other people don't do her work for her???? Being Muslim is not her problem. Being lazy is her problem.

[Bluegoat]

Here's a question then... are employers that require workers to "be available for any shift" not being accommodating to workers who need certain times off for religious services?  My faith doesn't observe Sabbath, but does place a priority on worship, which is at certain times.  So an employee could work on Sunday, but not on Sunday, say from 1-4 every single week.

 

Most people I know like this would just not even apply for a job that said "must be available any shift".  But what if they did, and were hired, but then said, "oh, but I need off Sunday afternoons, and since it is a religious reason, you should accommodate me." Assume a situation where there are other workers working a variety of shifts, and it might indeed be possible to schedule this one employee off on Sunday afternoons.  But is that really reasonable?  When the employer posted a job that said "any shift"?

 

I don't know... Personally I would not even apply for a job like that, since in my mind, my faith would prevent me from being available when the employer wanted, which was "anytime".  I always wonder though, about the "available any shift" requirement and religious implications.  That's different from a job that says, "Hours are Sundays 9-5."    

 

In the case of the flight attendant, she was offered accommodations.  She didn't like the ones that were offered.  The accommodation she liked (switching duties with other flight attendants) was tried and resulted in complaints from the other flight attendants, so she can't even argue that they never tried it.  She's done.

 

I also find the "available for any shift" thing a little funny.  Because honestly, who is actually able to be available for every possible shift at all times?  No one - we all have appointments, or the possibility of family responsibilities, and so on  I think there are very few jobs where normal life cannot be accommodated at all...

 

Sometimes when jobs say this, I think what they are saying is they want people that can be pretty flexible.

 

There are however jobs which actually expect workers to be available at any time, and are obliged to come in when they call - but they may or may not actually call.  Or which give completely different shifts each week.  I don't think this is actually a very good way to run a business unless absolutely necessary.

 

[TechWife]

 

There are however jobs which actually expect workers to be available at any time, and are obliged to come in when they call - but they may or may not actually call.  Or which give completely different shifts each week.  I don't think this is actually a very good way to run a business unless absolutely necessary.

 

 

I don't think it's a good way to run a business, either. Retail businesses have been taking a lot of flack around here for putting people on standby and expecting them to drop everything, yet not giving them enough regularly scheduled hours to help them actually have a part or full time job. 

 

I know with hospital jobs that require on call responsibilities, the duty rotates among employees. Even with that, the employee on call sometimes has some leeway - they can stack appointments around a certain time so that they go in once to take care of several things instead of going back & forth several times to take care of one thing. There are those true emergencies that require the person to go in right away, but the people who have those types of jobs are aware of that necessity up front. 

[goldberry]

I don't think it's a good way to run a business, either. Retail businesses have been taking a lot of flack around here for putting people on standby and expecting them to drop everything, yet not giving them enough regularly scheduled hours to help them actually have a part or full time job. 

 

 

 

In this area, since the recession hit, most "help wanted" signs include the words "must be available any shift".  Our local Walmart won't hire anyone that doesn't agree to that, nor will the local grocery stores.  The Walmart especially is known for not giving people their schedule until a day or two before the week starts, and they change the schedule every week in a random manner. People not only don't know how many hours they will get, they don't know days it will be.  Don't like it?  Find another job!

 

Sorry, this is OT, but I think it's very sad treatment.  Just wondered how religion would fit in.  They won't let anyone have a certain day off or blocked off consistently, for whatever reason.

[ErinE]

So... I have worked in hospitality for a long time and it would not be easy to work with someone who did not serve alcohol on a plane. When there are so few flight attendants on a flight it would be a BIG imposition for all the people working not to be interchangeable. And... does she not pick up the empty drinks either? That is 1/2 of serving them.

 

Also, if you accomodate this sort of silliness then all the RESPONSIBLE people who are not flight attendants because they don't want to serve alcohol will apply and demand that they also not serve alcohol either, making it a big headache for the scheduler to put people together who can serve/ won't serve alcohol.

 

This gal is a special snowflake. But you can't have everything your own way, and that seems to be what she wants. She honestly doesn't see why other people don't do her work for her???? Being Muslim is not her problem. Being lazy is her problem.

 

I don't think she's lazy. Her beliefs are likely sincerely held.

 

I just don't think her expectations are reasonable. Looking at the 10k (annual filing for public held companies), Express Jet has 69 planes that likely require two flight attendants (the CRJ700 and CRJ900) out of 385 in the total fleet; the rest are the 50-passenger planes which, in my experience, are served by one flight attendant. She is only capable of working on 17% of the company's planes without causing the airline to forgo revenue. That's unreasonable.

 

ETA: removed a sentence

[DragonFaerie]

I'm really kind of confused as to why an employer HAS to accommodate at all.  Yes, it's good business to treat employees well and try to keep them happy.  But at the end of the day, the employer has a business to run.  Why do they HAVE to accommodate anyone?

[marbel]

I'm really kind of confused as to why an employer HAS to accommodate at all.  Yes, it's good business to treat employees well and try to keep them happy.  But at the end of the day, the employer has a business to run.  Why do they HAVE to accommodate anyone?

 

Because sometimes giving reasonable accommodations helps them retain good employees. 

 

Because business owners are also moral, ethical, and even kind people who understand that being a good employer includes doing what you can (within reason) to help employees have good lives both at work and outside of work. 

 

I guess they don't have to accommodate anyone, though, outside what is required by law.

 

 

 

 

[DragonFaerie]

Because sometimes giving reasonable accommodations helps them retain good employees. 

 

Because business owners are also moral, ethical, and even kind people who understand that being a good employer includes doing what you can (within reason) to help employees have good lives both at work and outside of work. 

 

I guess they don't have to accommodate anyone, though, outside what is required by law.

 

That's what I'm saying.  I know why they WOULD.  But there seems to be a lot of attitude going around (in general; not here) that employers MUST accommodate, and I'm wondering why.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm really kind of confused as to why an employer HAS to accommodate at all.  Yes, it's good business to treat employees well and try to keep them happy.  But at the end of the day, the employer has a business to run.  Why do they HAVE to accommodate anyone?

 

Reasonable accommodations for religions and disabilities were put in place to help limit possible discrimination.

[bolt.]

I'm under the impression that "reasonable" accommodations are required by law -- that it is part of the whole package of anti-discrimination laws that protect minorities against bigotry in the workplace. (Canada)

 

I think that what is "reasonable" is decided in various courts, by following the usual legal procedures, forming a basis of previous cases that give a picture of what "reasonsble" tends to look like in the eyes of the law.

 

I think that offering a different position without change of pay or privilidges is one of the most common "reasonable" acomodations in cases like this.

[TechWife]

That's what I'm saying.  I know why they WOULD.  But there seems to be a lot of attitude going around (in general; not here) that employers MUST accommodate, and I'm wondering why.

 

Because it is the law. Beyond that, it's the right thing to do. Religion should not be a "litmus" test to determine if someone is a suitable employee. Anti-discrimination laws prevent people from this type of discrimination. Without them, people could be fired for simply being Muslim or Jewish or Christian or atheist, agnostic, etc.. Anti discrimination laws make sure that those who are fired are fired because they cannot or will not fulfill the requirements of their jobs, not because of the faith they do or do not ascribe to. 

[Tsuga]

Did not read the whole thread.

 

I have, however, gotten tipsy on Emirates so my thoughts are, this lady has chosen the wrong profession... if the Emiratis will sell and pour me a cocktail, how can it be that this lady can't pour a drink?

 

True, I don't know a lot of fundies in general, but I don't think this lady has a lot of flight-attending options, you know? Iran Air? Even some airlines in Afghanistan will serve you booze.

 

On the other hand, I'm deeply sympathetic to the argument that flight attendants are there primarily to attend to passenger needs and ensure passenger safety, not to be air waitresses/waiters. I think from that perspective, she has the best shot at a case.

 

Unfortunately for her, the job has long been known to involve serving food (including pork and other meats) and alcohol and caffeine to passengers, and I think if she wins it will be shocking.

 

On a personal note, if she were a young lady asking me for advice, I'd tell her to get herself to Iran or learn to deal because her expectations of the world are totally unrealistic.

[Carol in Cal.]

That's what I'm saying.  I know why they WOULD.  But there seems to be a lot of attitude going around (in general; not here) that employers MUST accommodate, and I'm wondering why.

I think in general people want things to be more black and white than this law is.

 

The law is really, really gray, and so it gives people a lot to argue about.  

 

The law basically says that an employer must attempt reasonable accommodation of certain things, including freedom of religious expression and employment of those with various kinds of disabilities.  This doesn't mean that an employer must accommodate them, but it does mean that they can simply dismiss them without being prepared to show that accommodation was considered and was discarded with good reasons.  

 

It doesn't sound to me like this young woman has a case, but I wouldn't want a 'How Green Was My Valley' type employment system either, so I'm glad that our laws mitigate for age, disability, etc.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think in general people want things to be more black and white than this law is.

 

The law is really, really gray, and so it gives people a lot to argue about.

 

The law basically says that an employer must attempt reasonable accommodation of certain things, including freedom of religious expression and employment of those with various kinds of disabilities. This doesn't mean that an employer must accommodate them, but it does mean that they can simply dismiss them without being prepared to show that accommodation was considered and was discarded with good reasons.

 

It doesn't sound to me like this young woman has a case, but I wouldn't want a 'How Green Was My Valley' type employment system either, so I'm glad that our laws mitigate for age, disability, etc.

It isn't that gray as there are some pretty good standards from the EEOC and additional guidance is usually available.

[Pam in CT]

I think in general people want things to be more black and white than this law is.

 

The law is really, really gray, and so it gives people a lot to argue about.  

 

The law basically says that an employer must attempt reasonable accommodation of certain things, including freedom of religious expression and employment of those with various kinds of disabilities.  This doesn't mean that an employer must accommodate them, but it does mean that they can simply dismiss them without being prepared to show that accommodation was considered and was discarded with good reasons.  

 

It doesn't sound to me like this young woman has a case, but I wouldn't want a 'How Green Was My Valley' type employment system either, so I'm glad that our laws mitigate for age, disability, etc.

 

I agree.  Employment in the US is for the most part "at will" -- employers don't generally need a reason to dismissal ("business is down" or "we're reorganizing and your position isn't needed anymore" types of rationales are generally just fine).  

 

But as there is a notion of "wrongful dismissal" for certain protected classes (i.e., an otherwise performing FA isn't supposed to be fired just because she gets married, as actually did happen in the Bad Old Days), so it is in employers' self interest to define the tasks carefully as techwife outlined above, and the EEOC has developed (loose) guidelines encouraging "reasonable" accommodation as ChocolateReign summarized above

 

(repeating CR's link & quote; it was a while back there... :laugh: ):

 

 

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/...es/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.

 

 

At the end of the day, for better or worse, there really isn't that much protection because employment in this country essentially is at the will of the employer.  There is nothing approaching a "right" to employment here.  So long as the employer avoids doing something Stoooopid like saying out loud "you're fired because I just discovered you're Muslim", most terminations will likely pass legal muster.  (Legal challenges are expensive; so such cases are often settled, but that's a somewhat different issue.)

 

(Not arguing that's a good thing, btw.  Just that it is what it is.)

[Cammie]

Ok, I did not read the entire thread.

 

However, this cannot be that hard.  Americans make it hard, I think.

 

Emirates is the airline of Dubai.

 

I fly it frequently.  They do serve alcohol.  As a result of this thread I realized that must be the reason they employ so many foreign flight crew staff. On a typical flight to the US the flight crew speaks about 13 different languages!

 

Clearly, this world-class (really VERY nice) airline has figured out a way to balance religious beliefs and the needs/desires of customers.

 

I don't think it has to be as difficult as we make it seem in the US.

[Carol in Cal.]

It isn't that gray as there are some pretty good standards from the EEOC and additional guidance is usually available.

It's gray in that it's not either:

 

1)  Complete employer decision making, with no protection from capricious or coercive employer decisions

 

or

 

2)  Complete obligation to accommodate every employee's religious beliefs or disabilities with utter employment protection. 

 

The law is in between, and there is some case by case interpretation that is part of it.  That makes it grayer than what people have been arguing, to a large extent, in this thread.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's gray in that it's not either:

 

1) Complete employer decision making, with no protection from capricious or coercive employer decisions

 

or

 

2) Complete obligation to accommodate every employee's religious beliefs or disabilities with utter employment protection.

 

The law is in between, and there is some case by case interpretation that is part of it. That makes it grayer than what people have been arguing, to a large extent, in this thread.

I am not sure I agree. The discussion has been about the gray area, and why this case likely fails the reasonable accommodation burden.

[mamakelly]

I just flew on Alaska air a few weeks ago. It was a nonstop flight to/from Hawaii. There were 5 flight attendants onboard. 1 worked exclusively in first class. 2 worked rows 1-18 and 2 worked rows 19-35(I think 35). Anyways, they did drink and food service twice during the flight, with both of the attendants serving drinks from both sides of the cart. I can't imagine how much work it would have been if one attendant had to do drink service alone. It was a morning flight and plenty of people bought alcohol around us. During the second drink service they served *free* Mai tais. Practically every adult on board was served a mai tai, lol. I can understand her personal objection, yet can you imagine having to do all that work, while the other FA just sits there? Oye!

[Spy Car]

A little perspective on 9/11.

 

We lost a friend in the terror attack in 2001. He was a flight attendant on a plane that went into the twin towers. He was gay, and had re-arranged his flight schedule in the hopes of getting home early to be with this long-time partner (a good friend to my wife and me), a man I'm sure he'd have married had it been legal. His survivor had to deal with slights from the airline over attending the memorial and battles over survivor benefits. 

 

I celebrate the changes we've made since then for people like Jeff.

 

I'm also cheered that a Muslim woman who wears a hijab was hired by an airline as a flight attendant. Those of us who remember Sikhs being roughed up ( :huh:) or the dagger-eyes and hostility that openly Muslim individuals faced in the wake of 9/11 must consider that progress. Not something about which to feel unduly proud—it is just the right thing after all—but imagine the thought 14 years ago.

 

Unfortunately if this Muslim woman feels a conflict between the duties of her job and her faith, which is reasonable given a mainstream interpretation in Islam that carrying and selling alcohol is haram, then she should seek a different career. There are situations where "accommodations" are easy and ought to be considered, this is not one of those situations.

 

I'm just glad to know the airline hired a woman in a hijab in the first instance. That—to me—is a sign of progress, even if the job doesn't pan out.

 

Bill

[BrookValley.]

Bill, I think (could be wrong) that she was hired before she converted to Islam. 

 

Not that we haven't seen progress in the last 14 years, in a lot of ways. We have. I celebrate every little victory. 

 

I'm so sorry about your friend. I know a lot of people are remembering lost loved ones today. 

[Butter]

Yes, I realized that and did a thorough search for Express Jet. I'm simply not turning up any information on the airline having offered her other positions. 

 

I realize the employer can't comment and hasn't so far, so I'm wondering if the info came from a reliable source (not questioning your reliability, but that of your source). 

 

I googled and turned up several references to ExpressJet offering to shift her to another position that doesn't involve serving alcohol.

[Word Nerd]

I googled and turned up several references to ExpressJet offering to shift her to another position that doesn't involve serving alcohol.

 

Please share any links you've found. I found that claim on HotAir, but it's an opinion piece and doesn't cite any source for the information.

[TechWife]

I googled and turned up several references to ExpressJet offering to shift her to another position that doesn't involve serving alcohol.

 

Links, pretty please. Like I said earlier, I haven't found any reference to this at all. 

[Haiku]

I'm just glad to know the airline hired a woman in a hijab in the first instance. 

 

They didn't. She converted after she was hired.

[DragonFaerie]

This whole thing makes me feel pretty bad for the employers.  From what I'm understanding, any employee can suddenly decide that they need "accommodation" for this or that reason, and the employer has to offer them something else instead of just telling them, "Well, sorry.  If you can't do the job we hired you for, we'll need to let you go."  

[Carol in Cal.]

This whole thing makes me feel pretty bad for the employers.  From what I'm understanding, any employee can suddenly decide that they need "accommodation" for this or that reason, and the employer has to offer them something else instead of just telling them, "Well, sorry.  If you can't do the job we hired you for, we'll need to let you go."  

No, that's not correct.

 

What the employer has to do is consider whether they can accommodate this without undue hardship.  It's really the employer's decision.  

 

It doesn't take the employer's rights away, but it mitigates them slightly, and it slows down/prevents kneejerk reactions in situations like that.  And it serves notice that if the employer is truly unreasonable, they can be sued, which I actually think is right and good.

[marbel]

No, that's not correct.

 

What the employer has to do is consider whether they can accommodate this without undue hardship.  It's really the employer's decision.  

 

It doesn't take the employer's rights away, but it mitigates them slightly, and it slows down/prevents kneejerk reactions in situations like that.  And it serves notice that if the employer is truly unreasonable, they can be sued, which I actually think is right and good.

 

Right, and it also needs to be reasonable.  If it's not reasonable, then the employer is off the hook.  But sometimes, someone may object to or be unable to perform part of their job, and there can be a simple fix.  I'm trying to come up with an example but having a hard time other than with one that has been brought up before:

 

a situation where the employer wants everyone available both Saturdays and Sundays.   One person has religious obligations on Saturday, one on Sunday, other employees have none.  Depending on the size of the company (and probably other factors I am not thinking of) it should be fairly easy to give people their desired day off.  That is an accommodation that might be easy and reasonable for the employer to allow.  Or, it may not be (because I don't run a business so I don't know the intricacies of staffing etc.).  But the employer can give it a try, and determine it's unreasonable.  Or, not give it a try, but explain why it's unreasonable.  No, just say "no, if you can't do it, quit" which may or may not result in a lawsuit.    

 

I am not trying to give a comprehensive legal view of the matter.  Just trying to give an example of why the employer doesn't necessarily lack rights in the matter.

 

[Junie]

And it's not just for religious reasons.

 

I have a wheat allergy.  If I worked at Panera, it would be unreasonable for me to ask them to switch to gluten-free bread in the store I worked in.  It would be reasonable for me to ask them to allow me to wear a mask and gloves.