The regional court found that Al-Jabery had not provided evidence that he had informed ConAgra that he could not touch the pork and that he was therefore in no position to establish a case of discrimination on the basis of prima facie. In contrast, a Georgia jury in the EEOC v. Regency Health Associates case investigated the employer and rejected the worker`s claims of religious discrimination regarding her dress.175 A dozen months after Dewey`s dismissal, The EEOC adopted regulations that, for the first time, established that the prohibition of religious discrimination under Title VII involved an employer`s inability to properly take into account the religious needs of workers, where housing can be affected without unreasonable hardship for employer behaviour.2 Note, Delimitation Title VII: Reverse Proxy Discrimination and Claims in Employment Discrimination Litigation, 67 Vand. L. Rev. 239, 259 (2014) (citing Courtney Rubin, Religious Discrimination Complaints on the Rise at Work, Inc., October 20, 2010, www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/10/complaints-of-religious-discrimination-on Ascension.html). A recent survey of American workers suggests that religious discrimination is a growing problem in the workplace.1 Indeed, the number of allegations of religious discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) has increased by 87% over the past decade.2 Growing religious diversity at work3 is only one reason for this trend. In the event of a conflict between employer policy and the exercise of workers` religious beliefs, employers must be aware of their rights and obligations with regard to the provision of religious housing. The EEOC acknowledged this conflict and published in March 2014 “Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities,” which focuses on how Title VII is applied to dress and religious care practices4.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 18-3710 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2019), a recently hired pension plan manager had to work Friday nights and Saturdays because of his employer`s oldest planning system. The collaborator observed the Jewish Sabbath (the sunset period on Friday at sunset on Saturday) and other Jewish holidays. As a result, he asked his employer to take into account his religious beliefs by not requiring him to work on the Jewish Sabbath. A common requirement for religious accommodation is the modification of a work plan due to conflicts with religious beliefs or practices. Preliminary proceedings following the instructions of the Hardison and Philbrooke Court sometimes find it difficult to determine what constitutes appropriate and unwarranted harshness given the factual nature of the investigation. The accommodation would have unfairly put New Jersey Transit in trouble, as Fouche`s choice not to drive on certain Sundays would have led to a violation of the union`s seniority of the collective agreement, raising a legal issue. As a general rule, employers may attempt to respond to religious requests for leave through many policies, such as existing paid leave. B or leave policies that allow employees to exchange positions with other workers, offer alternative work schedules or even offer alternative jobs.
In general, non-compliance with rights is not successful if the employer can prove that it has offered a worker a combination of options to meet the worker`s religious needs that go beyond the employer`s existing guidelines.