6 ms·
Reasonable accommodations can be made, but if availability during those times is a core job duty (known beforehand), then the firing is eminently justified. If
by elgenie 8y ago
Reasonable accommodations can be made, but if availability during those times is a core job duty (known beforehand), then the firing is eminently justified.
If your religion says you can't handle pork and you take a job at a pig slaughterhouse, the employer should not be obliged to pay you to do nothing.
- alehul 8y agoThis is true, but as you just said: it has to be a core job duty made clear before hiring. I highly doubt that Yelp would tell candidates "you cannot have a single day without checking your email." There may be some implicit "this is a startup, so work hard" mentality, but that won't hold up in a court of law.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> There may be some implicit "this is a startup, so work hard" mentality Yelp isn't really a startup by any reasonable standard.
- Aloha 8y agoI dont think 24/7/365 however is a reasonable thing to demand
- elgenie 8y agoSure, but you can't sue over that unless that wasn't demanded of people with other beliefs, which doesn't appear to be the case.
- ineedasername 8y agoSure you can: it's not a defense to say "but we discriminate against everyone"
- elgenie 8y agoIt is. "Discriminate against everyone" is oxymoronic.
- landryraccoon 8y agoReligion, like sex, is a protected class. By your argument you could tell a pregnant woman “sorry, you have to work, all the men have to keep working.” Regardless of what you personally believe that’s likely a losing case in a lawsuit.
- elgenie 8y agoThat's nice, but business necessity is, by law, an affirmative defense to discrimination claims, including those based on disparate impact. Whether the defense succeeds or fails depends on the facts of the case and a court's interpretation thereof. It's literally part of the Griggs v. Duke Power Co decision from which the disparate impact standard arose. The 1991 Civil Rights Act puts on defendants the burden of proving "that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- belorn 8y agoNot sure about your jurisdiction, but political affiliation is also a protected class. Together with religion there isn't possible to have rule or requirement which isn't against someone political or religious view. Anti-discimination laws must therefor limit themselves, often down specific scenarios or looking at the reason why a requirement exist rather than the requirement itself. For example, if I hold the political view that working more than four days a week is inhumane, that carries just as much as protected class status than if I believed Sundays are declared by god as the day of worship and rest. If a company fired someone for not showing up on the fifth day, they have just as much right to do so as fire someone for not showing up on Sunday if that is what the employment contract says. Local employment laws naturally applies.
- gnicholas 8y agoYou wouldn't sue and claim to have been discriminated against; the lawsuit would claim that your religious obligations could have been reasonably accommodated by the company but were not.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]