Exemption requests? Huh? There's no indication that the employer here had a rule that you must shake the boss's hand, or that the employee sought --let alone was denied -- an exemption from such a (nonexistent) rule.
But if an employer were so stupid as to impose such a rule, then yes, I imagine the Title VII accommodation requirement, modest as it is, would compel a religious exemption. "morale costs"? seriously? On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > I thought I’d pass along another post from Howard Friedman > -- any thoughts on how religious accommodation schemes (whether RFRA-like > or Title-VII-like) should deal with religiously motivated refusals to shake > hands with members of the opposite sex? Should there be a categorical rule > rejecting such exemption requests, on the theory that discriminatory > practices should never be accommodated? (Should it matter whether the > woman suggests, as an accommodation, that she not shake hands with anyone, > male or female?) Or should an employer have to accommodate such requests, > especially if any morale cost stemming from the accommodation comes from > coworkers’ emotional reactions to the religious practice? > > > > Eugene > > > > *Feed:* Religion Clause > *Posted on:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:00 AM > *Author:* Howard Friedman > *Subject:* Muslim Caseworker Sues Charging Religious Discrimination > > > > A Bangladeshi Muslim woman who was a social worker and had been employed > as a case manager by a behavioral healthcare company filed suit in an > Oregon state court last week charging religious, racial, national origin > and disability discrimination in her termination. The complaint (full > text > <http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/cascadia.discrimination.suit.pdf>) > in *Rahman v. Cascade Behavioral Healthcare, Inc.,* (OR Cir., Ct., filed > 10/7/2016), claims, in part, that adverse employment action against her > stemmed from her refusing for religious reasons to shake hands with men > (including her boss), her wearing of a *hijab*, and her praying at work > up to three times per day. The Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries had > dismissed her complaint filed with them, finding inadequate evidence of > discrimination. (Full text > <http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/Sharmin%20Rahman%2016-01271-DISMEMO-20160708134816-1.pdf> > of OBLI order). The Oregonian > <http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/10/islamic_woman_who_wouldnt_shak.html> > reports on the lawsuit. > > > View article... > <http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/10/muslim-caseworker-sues-charging.html> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
