Marty-- My question for Mark was whether there was any difference between the two bus drivers. I think not, and believe the "undue hardship" standard is a low bar that protects neither one, as you indicate. So nothing "unusual or notable" on my end. Marci In a message dated 4/25/2011 9:28:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lederman.ma...@gmail.com writes:
Well, Marci, if his claim is not simply that "he does not believe women should wear bathing suits," but is more broadly that if he drives women to Macy's it will create a religious hardship, then his religious request for an exemption must be honored under title VII unless doing so would create an undue hardship -- which, not least because of the precedent that would be set, it likely would. Therefore, the employer would almost certainly prevail. But the employer would have to establish an undue hardship -- a fairly low bar under title VII. What's so unusual or notable about that?
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
