Use these employers’ mistakes to ensure you don’t end up on the wrong side of a religious bias lawsuit.
Dress code issues and unwarranted religious expression in the workplace found these two employers in court — and led to two very different outcomes.
Lesson from a recent court ruling in a religious discrimination case: Yes, companies must take reasonable steps to accommodate workers’ religious beliefs. No, they don’t have to provide accommodations that would impose a hardship on the organization.
A female employee refuses to get an employer-mandated flu shot, saying the use of eggs in the preparation of the vaccine run counter to her beliefs as a vegan. After she was fired, she sued for religious discrimination. Did she win?
We often read court decisions where employers get hammered for failing to properly handle an employee request for an accommodation of some type. Nice to see one case where common sense carries the day.
A legal battle over a worker’s religious accessory shines a light on the fuzzy definition of “undue hardship” in employers’ responsibility to accommodate workers’ religious beliefs.
Occasionally, we run into stories that make us slap our foreheads and ask, “What were they thinking?” Here are a couple of examples.
A worker says he can’t work Saturdays — it’s against his religion. But his employer refuses to juggle everybody else’s schedule to accommodate him. Does that constitute religious discrimination? Read the dramatized version of this real-life case and see if you can determine the outcome.
You’re used to the concept of religious accommodations for employees. Could that extend to accepting a worker’s using religion as a rationale for assaulting a co-worker with anti-gay invective?
Federal courts haven’t exactly been clear on what qualifies as an “adverse action” on an employer’s part when it come to retaliation claims. So a recent ruling in Connecticut comes as good news.