3 ms·

"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.

by 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.

by debt 8y ago

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.