reply to the students response in 150 words minimum and provide 1 reference question Jason works for a car rental agency. Part of his religious observance is to pray several times per day.  He approac

reply to the students response in 150 words minimum and provide 1 reference

question

Jason works for a car rental agency. Part of his religious observance is to pray several times per day.  He approaches Supervisor Jan with a request for two additional 10-minute breaks per day in order to engage in prayer.

Student response

In analyzing this case the federal statues and/or theories of law that are applicable in this matter is Title VII of the civil right act of 1964. The definition of religion in the context of the federal statues includes "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief." (page 544). Even though religion is a protected class under title VII there are some specifications and/or limits on the accommodation of this class when it comes to employment. According to Bennett-Alexander, D. & Hartman L. P. (2019) "Unlike the other categories included in Title VII, there is not an absolute prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion. Rather, under Title VII, we see for the first time a category that has built into it a duty to reasonably accommodate the employee's religious conflict unless to do so would cause the employer undue hardship."(Page 541) A reasonable accommodation in relation to this situation refers to; after an employee/s notifies the employer the need for a religious accommodation, the employer is obligated to accommodate the religious practice. In terms of undue hardship,  an employer has the right to refuse to accommodate if it causes "more than de minimis cost" and the employer can prove this. Some examples that may cause undue hardships include; Violating a seniority system, causing lack of the necessity's of staffing, compromising health and or security, or costing the employer more than a minimal amount. Another statute that is also applicable to this case is the United States constitution's 1st amendment free exercise clause. The First Amendment states; "The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of America Citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious opinion, expression of opinion and practice were all expressly protected by the Free Exercise Clause." In doing more research I have found that the Free-Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause may be contradicting because the establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" which seems very interesting. 

The legal issues that exist in this case is that Jason took it upon himself to approach his co-workers in the lunch room everyday with bible versus while asking them to join him in reading the bible keeping in mind that there is a no-solicitation policy. After several employees complaining, the supervisor told Jason to cease this practice, Jason told her it was part of his religious observance. Even though Jason has the right to practice his religion he does not have the right to continue to harass his co workers every day with bible verses and asking him to join him in reading the bible. Also highlighting that the retail department store has a no-solicitation policy and even though Jason may feel like he is exercising his religious freedom he may be imposing other's religious beliefs by soliciting his own. The elements of the law is that although Jason has the right to practice his religion he is doing so by causing undue hardship to the employer; Therefore he may be in violation of the no solicitation policy and could be subject to termination.  This is a hypothetical, who knows how the others are feeling and or what they believe, but respect has to be exercised at all times. Reasonable accommodation can come into play in this scenario by finding other solution for Jason to continue his practice, which may be limited but the effort may go a long way. Based off this case it doesn't seem like Jason expressed his religious belief and expressed an need for an accommodation to conduct this practice. At this point due to receiving multiple complaints from other employers, this seems to be causing undue hardship to the company if these employees decide to quit; therefore it could cause lack of necessities of staffing, the cost seems far more greater here than the reasonable accommodation.

One case that I felt was on point with this scenario is Chalmers V. Tulon Company of Richmond (Page 565). "The supervisory employee sued for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate after being terminated for sending employees letter at home about their personal and religious lives. One employee received the letter while at home ill on leave after delivering a baby out of wedlock, and the other employee's wife opened the letter and became distraught because she thought their reference in the letter meant her husband was having an affair. The court held that there was no duty to accommodate the terminated employee's religious practice of sending such letters." The comparison between these two cases/scenarios is that both Jason and Chalmers took it upon themselves to practice their religion and impose on other's without asking for an accommodation first and harassing co workers with their practices and beliefs. In both cases it seems as though that upper management is not going to accommodate due to the fact that they are practicing their religion on others with no permission and are in turn violating policies themselves. The difference between the two cases is that Chalmers seem to be more aggressive in sending criticizing letters to her co workers pertaining to their personal lives that does not align to her religion. Jason was not as aggressive as he was approaching others with bible versus and asking them to join in reading although it is still not right to do as he was also imposing on other's beliefs and personal space. I feel that both of these individuals have invaded privacy and damaged work relationships which in turn cause more harm than a benefit to an organization. 

The actions that supervisor Jan could take is to ask him to stop and highlight the no solicitation policy as well as educating him on his rights, the reasonable accommodation and undue hardship. The immediate assumption is that Jason is correct he does have the right to practice his own religion as he pleases but this is where Jan could come in and explain that they could talk through some possible accommodations but if these recommendations are not realistic than he will need to stop. One idea that came to mind is asking co workers if they are comfortable with this practice and those who are, Jason could then continue to approach those individuals while avoiding those who are not comfortable. If this continues to become an issue she would then need to explain the undue hardship it may be causing the company and the other employees. If for some reason Jason refuses to stop, Jan has the right to terminate because this is not only causing lack of necessities of staffing by making others quit but it is also violating other employee's beliefs and privacy. Jan must exhaust all ideas and accommodations for Jason before making the decision to terminate. 

REFERENCES

Bennett-Alexander, D. & Hartman, L.P, (2019) Employment Law for Business. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

First Amendment. (n.d) Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment.