Accommodating religious practices dating internet linkdomain resources com
after she was hired, and told management that she eventually planned to wear a full headpiece, with only her eyes showing. It is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.
The clinic’s management objected, explaining to her that given the nature of the pediatric practice and the reasonable desire of child patients and parents to see the face of the medical staff providers, it could not approve wearing of a full headpiece. [the company] to assume that since the plaintiff was a Muslim it was obvious that he could not touch pork.” 2007 U.
The employee brought a Title VII suit for religious discrimination.
Many Muslims also believe that even touching pork violates this tenet of Islam, the accommodation of which was recently tested in , in which the EEOC alleged that in order to be referred for work at meat processing facilities applicants were required to sign a form stating that they would not refuse to handle pork in the course of their jobs. He objected to the transfer, but didn’t tell management that his reluctance to work on the pork production line was based on his religious beliefs.
In a consent decree, the employment agency agreed no longer to use the pork form. After he was terminated he sued for religious discrimination under Title VII, as-serting that the company had a duty to accommodate his religious objections to handling pork.