6 ms·

Assuming things went down more or less as described, I wouldn't put much stock in Yelps chances should this end up in front of a jury.

jhall1468 8y ago
They 100% win this. They didn't treat him differently because he's religious, they made him work despite being religious. That's perfectly legal in the US.
- klodolph 8y ago
  > That's perfectly legal in the US. This is incorrect. This behavior is illegal according to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not enough to treat people “equally”, because it is trivially easy to come up with “equal” but discriminatory requirements. Instead, companies are required to reasonably accommodate the religious observations of their employees, unless there is some compelling reason otherwise.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Reasonable accommodation doesn't mean the day off and it certainly doesn't mean the day off without requesting it in advance. To be clear, I'm not defending Yelp requiring people to be on email/phone 24/7, but his statement makes it very clear that he never made a request for this. Should he have to? No it's a weekend. But legally they aren't required to. Had he requested, in advance, that he not be contacted on Sunday for religious observation you can bet that would absolutely be public. It'd be a slam dunk case. So yes, it is perfectly legal to email someone on a religious holiday and expect an answer if they didn't request accommodations ahead of time. There's no court in the country that wouldn't call that unreasonable.
    - doktrin 8y ago
      You are pinning an awful lot on that missing request (as are Yelp, probably). Before we continue, are you a lawyer or do you just play one on TV?
      - jhall1468 8y ago
        Nope, not a lawyer. But I do have the power of common sense. You can refrain from the snide comments if this is too be a productive conversation. That request is literally the key to all of this. If they don't know he's observing a religious holiday how the hell can they be violating his rights here? Pretty sure the guy knew of Easter in advance. And while working for Yelp sounds pretty horrible, if he didn't request the day off for religious reasons I find it hard to comprehend how the company is liable for that. And for the sake of argument, I hope he did and Yelp ends up paying oodles of money for this. But I imagine that would have been very much spewing out of his lawyer's mouth if it were the case.
        klodolph 8y ago
        > But I do have the power of common sense. Are you saving it for later? (I joke, but your "common sense" assertion seems like a total non-sequitur to me.) > If they don't know he's observing a religious holiday how the hell can they be violating his rights here? He told them, it's right there in the lawsuit. > And while working for Yelp sounds pretty horrible, if he didn't request the day off for religious reasons I find it hard to comprehend how the company is liable for that. He had the day off to begin with. Normally you don't have to work during "time off". The company is liable because they fired him rather than make reasonable accommodations as required by law. This is spelled out rather clearly in the lawsuit.
        jhall1468 8y ago
        > Are you saving it for later? (I joke, but your "common sense" assertion seems like a total non-sequitur to me.) Hilarious. > He told them, it's right there in the lawsuit. No, he told them after they attempted to contact him. That's not requesting in advance. > He had the day off to begin with Clearly he didn't. Even he says all this managers employees were emailed with the expectation they'd be available via email on weekends. That's horrible and a place I'd never work. But that's not illegal. > Normally you don't have to work during "time off". It's not "time off" if they obligate people to be available. It's permanent on-call. > The company is liable because they fired him rather than make reasonable accommodations as required by law. And their argument is going to be he didn't request reasonable accommodations because they weren't requested in a reasonable time frame. If he had a request a week in advance this wouldn't even be conversation.

jhall1468 8y ago

They 100% win this. They didn't treat him differently because he's religious, they made him work despite being religious. That's perfectly legal in the US.

klodolph 8y ago
> That's perfectly legal in the US. This is incorrect. This behavior is illegal according to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not enough to treat people “equally”, because it is trivially easy to come up with “equal” but discriminatory requirements. Instead, companies are required to reasonably accommodate the religious observations of their employees, unless there is some compelling reason otherwise.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  Reasonable accommodation doesn't mean the day off and it certainly doesn't mean the day off without requesting it in advance. To be clear, I'm not defending Yelp requiring people to be on email/phone 24/7, but his statement makes it very clear that he never made a request for this. Should he have to? No it's a weekend. But legally they aren't required to. Had he requested, in advance, that he not be contacted on Sunday for religious observation you can bet that would absolutely be public. It'd be a slam dunk case. So yes, it is perfectly legal to email someone on a religious holiday and expect an answer if they didn't request accommodations ahead of time. There's no court in the country that wouldn't call that unreasonable.
  - doktrin 8y ago
    You are pinning an awful lot on that missing request (as are Yelp, probably). Before we continue, are you a lawyer or do you just play one on TV?
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      Nope, not a lawyer. But I do have the power of common sense. You can refrain from the snide comments if this is too be a productive conversation. That request is literally the key to all of this. If they don't know he's observing a religious holiday how the hell can they be violating his rights here? Pretty sure the guy knew of Easter in advance. And while working for Yelp sounds pretty horrible, if he didn't request the day off for religious reasons I find it hard to comprehend how the company is liable for that. And for the sake of argument, I hope he did and Yelp ends up paying oodles of money for this. But I imagine that would have been very much spewing out of his lawyer's mouth if it were the case.
      - klodolph 8y ago
        > But I do have the power of common sense. Are you saving it for later? (I joke, but your "common sense" assertion seems like a total non-sequitur to me.) > If they don't know he's observing a religious holiday how the hell can they be violating his rights here? He told them, it's right there in the lawsuit. > And while working for Yelp sounds pretty horrible, if he didn't request the day off for religious reasons I find it hard to comprehend how the company is liable for that. He had the day off to begin with. Normally you don't have to work during "time off". The company is liable because they fired him rather than make reasonable accommodations as required by law. This is spelled out rather clearly in the lawsuit.
        jhall1468 8y ago
        > Are you saving it for later? (I joke, but your "common sense" assertion seems like a total non-sequitur to me.) Hilarious. > He told them, it's right there in the lawsuit. No, he told them after they attempted to contact him. That's not requesting in advance. > He had the day off to begin with Clearly he didn't. Even he says all this managers employees were emailed with the expectation they'd be available via email on weekends. That's horrible and a place I'd never work. But that's not illegal. > Normally you don't have to work during "time off". It's not "time off" if they obligate people to be available. It's permanent on-call. > The company is liable because they fired him rather than make reasonable accommodations as required by law. And their argument is going to be he didn't request reasonable accommodations because they weren't requested in a reasonable time frame. If he had a request a week in advance this wouldn't even be conversation.