|
June 11, 2002 Briefing from Alan J. Reinach, Esq, California Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, regarding the Workplace Religious Freedom Act introduced in the U.S. Senate In mid-May, S-2572 was introduced in the U.S. Senate by co-sponsors Senator John Kerry [D-MA] (and reputedly a contender for presidential nomination), and Sen. Rick Santorum [R-PA] (who has close ties to the White House). This bill is a civil rights measure to strengthen existing protection for religious accommodation in the work place. As such, it has broad bi-partisan appeal. Democrats like it, because it is a civil rights and employment discrimination measure, and also gives them something to score points with their religious constituents. Republicans like it because it also is an easy score with their religious constituents. The bill really does not impose any significant fiscal impact on business, although their opposition is assured. Who does the bill help? A wide variety of religious practices and beliefs. Those who observe a Sabbath, or insist on regular attendance at religious services; those who have religious dress or grooming standards, such as beards or head coverings; and most any other religious belief or practice that might need accommodation in the workplace. It cuts across denominational lines, to be sure, and helps Catholics who refuse to participate in abortions, for example, or Jews who wear yarmulkes or observe Sabbath; it helps Protestants who won't work on Sundays, Muslims who wish to attend Friday prayer services; Sikhs who wear turbans; Rastafarians who wear dreadlocks [but probably not relevant to the religious use of marijuana, by the way]; Friends who conscientiously object to bearing arms, etc. One of the things that would be helpful to us would be to have examples from everyone on how members of their faith require religious accommodation. What exactly does the bill do? In brief, the bill refines the existing standard of "reasonable accommodation" short of an "undue hardship" on the conduct of one's business, by doing two things: 1) it defines undue hardship as a "significant difficulty or expense," a huge improvement over the current "de minimus" hardship standard, which effectively means practically nothing. 2) the bill defines an accommodation as one that actually resolves the conflict between one's religious obligation and job requirement. Incredibly, both employers and some courts have missed this point, and believe that a reasonable accommodation would be one that only partly resolves the conflict. In other words, permitting someone to observe a Sabbath, or Sunday, or Friday prayer service EVERY week, even though a religious obligation, would be unreasonable. The law would make it clear that an accommodation fully resolves the conflict. If an accommodation is unduly burdensome, the employer is still off the hook, but the problem is analyzed in terms of the severity of the burden, not whether the employer provided reasonable accommodation. |
Copyright ©1999, 2000. ---- FOUNDATION FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, LA, California, USA, Tel: (800) 556-3055. All Rights Reserved.--- Send questions/comments about this site to WebMaster@forf.org, member of The HTML Writer's Guild
|