minoanmiss (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
minoanmiss) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
agonyaunt2021-04-26 11:58 am
minoanmiss) wrote in agonyaunt2021-04-26 11:58 am
Entry tags:
Ask a Manager: Where’s the line on religious accommodation?
I was curious about where the line is on religious accommodation, and at what point it’s okay to say an accommodation cannot be made. Also, I know for many things you recommend that candidates let the hiring team know of any accommodations they need at the offer stage (which makes perfect sense) but what if they don’t say anything until their first couple of weeks?
I had an employee who needed an accommodation that allowed them to take lunch at a different time from the rest of the company once a week. This was somewhat inconvenient but I was able to accommodate them. Later they let me know that they were going to need additional accommodations, which again were doable but inconvenient. I also noticed that their work performance suffered during certain times when they told me they needed to fast for their religion. I felt that I couldn’t bring this up as I was worried about being accused of violating a religious accommodation. They didn’t make me aware of any of these needed accommodations until they’d been hired and working for a couple of weeks. At one point it was suggested that in order for me to accommodate this employee I would need to work additional hours (unpaid as I am salaried and exempt). I was able to push back on that but it was stressful and I had to use some capital I don’t think I should have had to use.
I was able to accommodate this employee with minimal frustration, but what if it hadn’t been as easy? What if there’d been a standing meeting that they were needed for during the time they needed to take their lunch that couldn’t be easily moved? I want to be as supportive and flexible as possible but at what point am I able to say “this goes past reasonable”?
The law says employers must accommodate employees’ religious needs unless it would cause “undue hardship.” The bar for undue hardship is pretty high — generally something that’s costly, compromises people’s safety, requires others to do more than their share of difficult or undesirable work, or infringes on other employees’ rights. Moving a meeting likely doesn’t meet that bar, although you having to work more hours probably would.
If the person’s work performance suffered when they were fasting, I’d look at how you handle it when someone else’s work performance suffers because they’re sick, tired, hungry, etc. Presumably you figure that everyone has ups and downs and unless it becomes a pattern, it’s generally just part of working with humans. (I’m assuming the fasting periods were relatively rare. If they weren’t, then you’d address the performance issues just like you would any other — no need to bring the fasting into it.)
But it’s absolutely fine that the employee didn’t address the accommodations they needed until a few weeks on the job. There’s no requirement, ethical or legal, that they address it earlier than that. (Keep in mind that you can’t legally rescind a job offer over it, so there’s no real reason you needed to hear it earlier; it’s fine for them to raise it when they’re comfortable raising it.)
no subject
no subject
This is a good answer. And honestly, it's a reasonable question from the LW, and I say that as someone who has felt uncomfortable asking for religious accommodations. People should know what's reasonable and what's unreasonable, and what the law is. If someone needs to leave early every friday for shabbat and can't work saturdays, then whether that needs to be accommodated depends a lot on what the job is -- and I'm pretty sure that the way it works in retail, where having blackout days on weekends is often prohibited, is illegal in most cases. But if the job is "weekend manager", that's different; that's undue hardship.
It's also unfortunately true in the US that the SCOTUS has recently been interpreting religious freedom of employees around Christianity, explicitly, and they've made it clear that "sincerely held belief of a Christian" is protected whether or not there's any connection between that sincerely held belief and any dogma, church, theology, pastor, or lifestyle choice of the Christian employee to support it. That's not for Alison to address, of course, although it's pretty obvious that LW's employee is not a Christian, or at least, not from a mainstream Christian group.
But what is relevant for Alison to address is state laws, which are also shitty in the same way, usually, for example, Pharmacist conscience clauses. Which basically mean anti-choice pharmacists can claim that they don't have to do their jobs, even if there is no other alternative employee available, in a way that almost exclusively protects certain flavors of Christian. (I can't imagine such a law protecting a Jewish or Muslim pharmacist who refused to sell any medications containing gelatin capsules, for example. It would be obviously nonsense, even though the letter of the laws would theoretically require it.)
So, in other words, it depends on the job, and the state. Also the courts are trash.
no subject
no subject
Yeah, pikuach nefesh is not a strong trait in the American right. 🤬
no subject
I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
I'm not Jewish but I seem to remember that if it's saving a life or something of that nature, the laws have no hold?
(I know that I am encouraged, in my High Church Christian sect, that if it's a Sunday and someone needs something to save their life or prevent danger to other people, it is a moral imperative to help that person, all laws are off.)
Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
That being said different rabbis will interpret that differently. Some rabbis will say that the principle (pikuach nefesh) really only applies when a life is on the line, not just someone's comfort, so it wouldn't apply, for, say, prilosec or a painkiller or something that is just a quality of life med. Most rabbinic authorities are very liberal about medical care but it's not unheard of for one not to be.
(Also the Target pharmacists refusing to fulfill oral contraceptive prescriptions are also following a radical interpretation of the rules (which is to say, no papal bull ever said "and by the way you can totally take a job where your job is to police whether non-catholics get to have prescribed horomones and then just refuse to sell them"), so it would be fair turnabout for a Jewish pharmacist to do the same thing.)
Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
Considering how often under-medicated chronic pain leads to suicide, I would argue that painkillers = lives ARE on the line.
Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
(Why this doctrine doesn't apply to a married couple using condoms when one partner is HIV+, an interpretation specifically rejected by Benedict's Vatican remains an infuriating puzzle.)
Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
Here's how I found my first ob/gyn, junior year of high school: the whisper network in my class, that said "If you go to Doctor Excellent-ObGyn, and say, I have cramps, it turns out that Doctor Excellent-ObGyn is not stupid about what it means when a 16 year old girl volunteers for a pelvic exam, and she will write you a prescription for the pill for 'dysmenorrhea.'"
Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory
Flash forward to last year when Teenager was having super-bad cramps, and her pediatrician recommended them off the bat (Teenager calls them her "anti-baby meds," which cracks me up, because she still thinks boys are kind of buttheads.). My mother, who had kind of flipped when I left them out on the desk of my dorm junior year, replied that, oh yeah, Oldest Niece had done that. I really wish doctors had thought that way when I was a teen, because I'd have been saved a lot of pain and other problems.
*I was one of about seven women faculty who brought it up during the next contract negotiation. It have never been opposed, just, well, stuffy old men hadn't thought of it.
no subject
I do think the employee made it harder with the drip-drip-drip nature of the requests, which seem to have added up to a series of exceptions to the established norms, rather than being forthright in the first week or two after starting. I wholly empathize with and understand why the employee did that, but that approach sets up for a very stressful situation where little bombs are occasionally going off for the manager and disrupting long-established (for good reason, in the case of international meetings) routines.
no subject
I am making a generalization but this sounds like someone needs to go to Masjid on Fridays and probably fasts for the month of Ramadan (which is currently ongoing right now, which might be why this question is happening right now)
Looking at this another way. I knew teachers who had students who would be fasting during ramadan (which mean being up very early to eat before prayer in the morning, and staying up late at night to eat as well) They too would notice their students were not as focused during that month (and felt so bad for the kids when say state exams were during that month) But other than hoping they would not fall asleep during classes, tailored and changed their curriculum that month to help all students. Managers should be able to do the same.
no subject
In the US, you aren't required to state religion on an application or interview.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Friday lunchtime + fasting makes the very likely Muslim--and even if they don't want to talk to the employee, they can just compare fasting/other patterns to various religions and figure this out. Lots of data to work from! But let's assume Muslim. If they're going to Friday prayer, then they're likely on the more observant end of the spectrum, but again, you don't really need to know that to plan ahead.
Possible things that employee will want accommodation for:
- Friday prayer
- private space to pray throughout the day
- modified workload during Ramadan? Or something else
- time off for major holidays, which, unlike for Christians, are unlikely to fall on stat holidays
- halal meals when applicable
- may refrain from shaking hands
Like, even if they've never met a Muslim person in their whole entire life, this is a 30-second google. And if they don't want to actually have to do any reading themselves, they can call their local (or state, or national, whatever) Muslim Association. They're in management and HR! This is literally their job! There is NO reason for this to be "a very stressful situation where little bombs are occasionally going off" unless they make it one.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If we had better workplace protections or stronger unions in the US it would be a different story, but it's hard, given that there's no realistically practical way to prove your offer was rescinded because you're in a protected class. I've started disclosing disability before the written offer only because employers are such pricks when they get the revelation after the fact, but I know I've lost offers because of it and if I weren't economically privileged I wouldn't do that.
no subject