Skip to main content

Job offer reasonably retracted due to candidate’s religious conflicts

AL

By

Last updated November 6, 20241 min read
Job offer reasonably retracted due to candidate’s religious conflicts

When it comes to accommodating religious needs, employers often have to be lenient to avoid trouble.

But a recent case complicated the matter when a candidate’s request for an accommodation directly interfered with the job requirements.

Request posed hardships

Mitche Dalberiste, a Seventh Day Adventist, applied for a technician position at GLE Associates, which entailed a seven-day workweek and 12-hour shifts.

When the company learned his faith would prohibit him from working on the Sabbath – from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday – it revoked his job offer.

Dalberiste sued for religious discrimination, retaliation and failure to accommodate. He argued the employer could’ve altered other employees’ work schedules and duties to work around Dalberiste’s religious needs.

However, the court said that providing such accommodations would place an undue burden on both the employer and other employees.

The employer would not only incur additional costs, but it would have to restructure its scheduling procedures.

And, to compensate for Dalberiste’s schedule, the other employees would have to bear an additional workload.

This case shows there are non-discriminatory justifications for refusing religious accommodations when hardships would arise.

Cite: Dalberiste v. GLE Associates Inc., 5/19/20.

Filed underEmployment Law
Share

Further Reading

  • Unpaid Pre-Shift Work Costs New Jersey Employer $725K

    A New Jersey drywall installer must pay $725,000 after failing to pay 48 workers overtime for pre-shift work performed while they waited for transportation to job sites. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found P & B Partitions Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules. The company also refused […]

  • Connecticut Joins States Regulating Workplace AI: 7 Compliance Steps

    Connecticut is putting employers on notice over workplace AI. Effective Oct. 1, 2026, SB 5 clarifies that Connecticut employers facing a discrimination claim can’t blame the artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use to make hiring, promotion, discipline or termination decisions. Other changes that kicked in the same day: And there’s more coming. The law’s second […]

  • Pa. Court Sets 3-Year Deadline for Minimum Wage Act Claims

    Pennsylvania employers face a three-year window for employees to sue over unpaid minimum wages or overtime under state law, rather than the six years a trial court previously allowed. The ruling came in a case involving 20 pharmacy employees seeking overtime for work done from 2017 to 2019. The employers argued the claims were filed […]

  • Hidden Payroll Rounding Risk: Unpaid Pre-Shift Time Under Scrutiny

    Required pre-shift tasks – and whether employees are paid for them – are at the center of a former hospital nurse’s wage dispute. Chestnut Hill Hospital required nurses to change into surgical scrubs by 7 a.m. for a morning huddle. Pamela McBride sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the hospital didn’t pay her […]