Who won this case: “But I need the day off – it’s my religion”
April 11, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: EEOC, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Terminations
Say you’d always given one employee freedom in his scheduling so he could attend weekly religious services. But now staffing is tight, and you need to rethink that policy. Are you liable for religious discrimination? Read the facts and decide: Who won this case?
The facts: An employee in Ohio was asked to start working on Saturdays. The scheduling policy required all employees to work some Saturdays shifts on a rotating basis. But for a while, the man was exempt from the rotation because he needed the day off for religious observances. However, staff levels declined and some of his co-workers started complaining about having to cover more than their fair share of Saturday shifts. So the employer reversed his exemption, He sued for religious discrimination.
What the company said: It tried to honor his request, but once the workforce shrank and the complaints started coming in, giving him off every Saturday off became too big a burden. As a compromise, the man was allowed to use vacation days when he needed off. Once he ran out of those, the company said, he’d be able to take unpaid time off when he was scheduled to work on Saturday.
Who won? The employer.
Why: When employment duties and religious obligations conflict, employers don’t have to automatically give in to employees’ demands. The key is finding a reasonable compromise. In this case, once the man’s scheduling leeway started to negatively impact his co-workers, that solution was no longer reasonable.
Instead, the company proposed a solution that would’ve allowed him to take Saturdays off. It was up to him to decide whether or not he wanted to sacrifice vacation days or lose pay in order to do so.
When an accommodation is needed, it’s up to the employer and employee to work out a solution together. If the employee’s idea would significantly adds to the costs of running the business or put an unfair burden on co-workers, then the employer is normally not required to go along with it.
Cite: Tepper v. Potter
September 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
It is my humble opinion that if the company cannot retain or hire sufficient staff, that is the company’s problem.
It seems to me that they shifted their HR burdens on ALL employees, however, a person’s religious beliefs that would under ALL circumstances make them unavailable a certain day, should not put this employee in a position where they have to choose between work and pay.
If the employer is simply not paying the employee for not working, that I could understand. But to lose pay for time worked because an employee is unable to contribute overtime, or to reduce workdays during the week only to require someone to work when unable and then punish them financially for not doing so, goes against my sense of right and wrong.
It would be my opinion that they run a second shift as opposed to Saturdays, or hire more people.