Ask a Manager: Where’s the line on religious accommodation?

[minoanmiss]

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.)

Comments

[jadelennox]

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.

[gingicat]

Well, but of course we, being people who interpret Leviticus *accurately*, would know that the medicine is more important than being nitpicky about gelatin.

[jadelennox]

Yeah, pikuach nefesh is not a strong trait in the American right. 🤬

[ysobel]

...I read that as pikachu nefesh...

I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory

[sporky_rat]

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

[jadelennox]

yeah, except for the laws against idolatry, adultery, and murder.

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

[lilysea]

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.

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

[cereta]

FWIW, Catholicism has adopted the "doctrine of double effect" where oral contraception is concerned. If a woman's "primary" reason for taking them is dysmenorrhea or something similar (and let's face it: doctors have been writing "dysmenorrhea" on charts for decades to get around insurance issues), it is perfectly acceptable for her to take them. And I don't know a single priest who would suggest a pharmacist investigate/interrogate the reasons a woman was on them. Not to say they don't exist, or that Catholic pharmacists might not know said doctrine is outside the realm of possibility.

(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

[conuly]

Probably because you *don't* need a prescription for condoms.

Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory

[cereta]

Well, no, but I'm talking about the Vatican, and specific priests, telling married couples in which one partner is HIV+ not to use them, which (IMHO) makes no sense when the Doctrine of Double Effect clearly applies.

Re: I am not a religious scholar, this is dregs of memory

[jadelennox]

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

[cereta]

I've had multiple friends describe said experience. I never had it first-hand, because I've had dysmenorrhea like whoa since menarche, so it was never an issue, but when I started current job, they didn't cover hormonal contraception, so it was pretty common practice.*

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.