4 ms·

Is it really religious discrimination though? It's pretty clear that the plaintiff's boss didn't care why he was incommunicado, only that he was. It doesn't app

Is it really religious discrimination though? It's pretty clear that the plaintiff's boss didn't care why he was incommunicado, only that he was. It doesn't appear that he displayed any religious hostility or intolerance, the outcome would have been the same if the employee was an atheist who decided to spend time with his family on a Sunday.

Arzh 8y ago
Yeah I don't think it will get anywhere but that seems to be the only way they can see to fight since (I'm guessing) requiring someone to be on all call at all hours isn't illegal.
- lgeorget 8y ago
  As a matter of fact, it is in various countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect. In France it exists since 2001 and had been reinforced by the last labour law. I'm not sure about the actual consequences.
  - Arzh 8y ago
    Yeah but this is in America where those laws don't exist, though I wish they did
aeturnum 8y ago
Yes, it is. You're correct that any employee who decided to not answer their phone for a period might attract the same displeasure, but we have laws in the US that protect people who are observing religious holidays and he was, in fact, observing one. I guess Yelp could argue that his observation was unreasonably extreme, but that seems unlikely to pass muster.
- everdev 8y ago
  > we have laws in the US that protect people who are observing religious holidays Do we? From: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Holidays.htm https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Holidays.htm > California law does not require that an employer provide its employees with paid holidays, that it close its business on any holiday, or that employees be given the day off for any particular holiday
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    United States > California. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm "The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion. Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices."
    - everdev 8y ago
      > unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business No employer is required to approve PTO for religious holidays if something needs to get done. There are tons of employees who get scheduled to work on Christmas all the time.
      - kayfox 8y ago
        So, if an employee was not at work, not expected to be at work, do they need to apply for and get PTO to avoid getting calls in that off time? It seems pretty clear that if the employer expects response in a certain time frame, the employee is engaged, and there may be issues even for salaried overtime-exempt employees with keeping an employee engaged 24/7/365.
        8y ago
- root_axis 8y ago
  Not so sure about that. I am not a lawyer, but from what I've read, the courts are very particular about religious discrimination cases and part of the burden of proving religious discrimination is to demonstrate a policy or behavior that has the effect of singling out individuals of a particular faith.
  - aeturnum 8y ago
    I do not think the argument is that his religion was discriminated against /in particular/, but that the working environment was anathema to the reasonable observation of religion. That said, I am not a lawyer either!
debt 8y ago
"didn't care why he was incommunicado" That would make it discrimination. By law, you must recognize and respect a person's religious beliefs in the workplace. Not caring, is equivalent to saying, "you will be unnecessarily put at a disadvantage at the workplace because of your religious beliefs."
- jhall1468 8y ago
  No, it actually wouldn't. The law prevents people from being treated differently because of their religion. No law obligates employers to respect religious beliefs. You simply can't treat them differently because of them. That's certainly not the case here.
  - klodolph 8y ago
    > No law obligates employers to respect religious beliefs. This is incorrect. For example, see title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious practices must be accommodated. There are various exceptions, but this is the general rule. There's an enormous amount of case law supporting this. Telling employees that they must be available 24/7/365 is prima facie violation of this law.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      That's nonsense. Accommodated doesn't not mean removing the conflict. Telling employees they must be available 24/7 if they are exempt and/or paid for their time is perfectly legitimate. In response, an employee must tell the employer when/what time they need off for religious reasons, and the employer can offer a number of "accommodations" including voluntary shift swapping. Again, "case law" overwhelmingly favors employers here. Here's the EEOC on the matter: "The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business." A minimal burden is an enormously low requirement. > Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices. Voluntary shift substitutions is a remedy, when combined with other remedies. And even then, it was only held that voluntary shift substitutions aren't solely enough in specific cases and that was decided in January of 2018 in Tabura v. Kellogg. There is vastly more nuance involved here then "He asked for it off the same day he wanted it off, thus Yelp is in the wrong." Yelp is a crap company, but that's not the same thing as violating the right to practice religion.
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
Just because he was fired for trying to take Christian holidays, doesn't make it anything but religious discrimination. Forcing a Jew to work on Yom Kippur or a Muslim on Eid would be the same.
Aloha 8y ago
If this person was observant Orthodox Jewish, and you expected them to be available on Shabbat, it'd be a clear violation of religious freedom - I don't see why a particularly religious Christian shouldn't get the same exemption. It's not reasonable to expect someone to be available 24/7 unless they were on call for this particular spell, as part of a rotation.
wlesieutre 8y ago
Yelp's legal obligations are more complicated than "treat everyone the same." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations of employees' religions. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_... >Examples of common religious accommodations include: >a Catholic employee needs a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday Is being out of contact for 12 hours on Good Friday an "undue hardship" for the business? I'm not a lawyer but I'm skeptical.

Arzh 8y ago

Yeah I don't think it will get anywhere but that seems to be the only way they can see to fight since (I'm guessing) requiring someone to be on all call at all hours isn't illegal.

lgeorget 8y ago
As a matter of fact, it is in various countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect. In France it exists since 2001 and had been reinforced by the last labour law. I'm not sure about the actual consequences.
- Arzh 8y ago
  Yeah but this is in America where those laws don't exist, though I wish they did

aeturnum 8y ago

Yes, it is. You're correct that any employee who decided to not answer their phone for a period might attract the same displeasure, but we have laws in the US that protect people who are observing religious holidays and he was, in fact, observing one. I guess Yelp could argue that his observation was unreasonably extreme, but that seems unlikely to pass muster.

everdev 8y ago
> we have laws in the US that protect people who are observing religious holidays Do we? From: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Holidays.htm https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Holidays.htm > California law does not require that an employer provide its employees with paid holidays, that it close its business on any holiday, or that employees be given the day off for any particular holiday
- reaperducer 8y ago
  United States > California. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm "The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion. Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices."
  - everdev 8y ago
    > unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business No employer is required to approve PTO for religious holidays if something needs to get done. There are tons of employees who get scheduled to work on Christmas all the time.
    - kayfox 8y ago
      So, if an employee was not at work, not expected to be at work, do they need to apply for and get PTO to avoid getting calls in that off time? It seems pretty clear that if the employer expects response in a certain time frame, the employee is engaged, and there may be issues even for salaried overtime-exempt employees with keeping an employee engaged 24/7/365.
      - 8y ago
root_axis 8y ago
Not so sure about that. I am not a lawyer, but from what I've read, the courts are very particular about religious discrimination cases and part of the burden of proving religious discrimination is to demonstrate a policy or behavior that has the effect of singling out individuals of a particular faith.
- aeturnum 8y ago
  I do not think the argument is that his religion was discriminated against /in particular/, but that the working environment was anathema to the reasonable observation of religion. That said, I am not a lawyer either!

debt 8y ago

"didn't care why he was incommunicado" That would make it discrimination. By law, you must recognize and respect a person's religious beliefs in the workplace. Not caring, is equivalent to saying, "you will be unnecessarily put at a disadvantage at the workplace because of your religious beliefs."

jhall1468 8y ago
No, it actually wouldn't. The law prevents people from being treated differently because of their religion. No law obligates employers to respect religious beliefs. You simply can't treat them differently because of them. That's certainly not the case here.
- klodolph 8y ago
  > No law obligates employers to respect religious beliefs. This is incorrect. For example, see title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious practices must be accommodated. There are various exceptions, but this is the general rule. There's an enormous amount of case law supporting this. Telling employees that they must be available 24/7/365 is prima facie violation of this law.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    That's nonsense. Accommodated doesn't not mean removing the conflict. Telling employees they must be available 24/7 if they are exempt and/or paid for their time is perfectly legitimate. In response, an employee must tell the employer when/what time they need off for religious reasons, and the employer can offer a number of "accommodations" including voluntary shift swapping. Again, "case law" overwhelmingly favors employers here. Here's the EEOC on the matter: "The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business." A minimal burden is an enormously low requirement. > Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices. Voluntary shift substitutions is a remedy, when combined with other remedies. And even then, it was only held that voluntary shift substitutions aren't solely enough in specific cases and that was decided in January of 2018 in Tabura v. Kellogg. There is vastly more nuance involved here then "He asked for it off the same day he wanted it off, thus Yelp is in the wrong." Yelp is a crap company, but that's not the same thing as violating the right to practice religion.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

Just because he was fired for trying to take Christian holidays, doesn't make it anything but religious discrimination. Forcing a Jew to work on Yom Kippur or a Muslim on Eid would be the same.

Aloha 8y ago

If this person was observant Orthodox Jewish, and you expected them to be available on Shabbat, it'd be a clear violation of religious freedom - I don't see why a particularly religious Christian shouldn't get the same exemption. It's not reasonable to expect someone to be available 24/7 unless they were on call for this particular spell, as part of a rotation.

wlesieutre 8y ago

Yelp's legal obligations are more complicated than "treat everyone the same." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations of employees' religions. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_... >Examples of common religious accommodations include: >a Catholic employee needs a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday Is being out of contact for 12 hours on Good Friday an "undue hardship" for the business? I'm not a lawyer but I'm skeptical.