C
- Status
D
Dale_M
Guest
Hmm… Macy’s could be in trouble.The US Appeals Court, Second District ruled in 2006 that Home Depot failed to provide adequate accommodation of religion by offering an employee a partial day off on Sunday, rather than the full day off as required by the employee’s religion.
openjurist.org/445/f3d/541/baker-v-the-home-depot-05-1069-cv
Since California is not within the Second District, I don’t think the ruling is automatically binding. However, it does provide precedent and may guide the decision which is reached. Perhaps it will come down to what religious denomination Ms. Bradfield belongs to and whether other members of that denomination routinely work on the Sabbath?
Employers are not required to make a religious accommodation if it causes “undue hardship.” The term is vague, but the prior record of Ms. Bradfield being accommodated with Sundays off suggest that “undue hardship” did not happen.
openjurist.org/445/f3d/541/baker-v-the-home-depot-05-1069-cv
Since California is not within the Second District, I don’t think the ruling is automatically binding. However, it does provide precedent and may guide the decision which is reached. Perhaps it will come down to what religious denomination Ms. Bradfield belongs to and whether other members of that denomination routinely work on the Sabbath?
Employers are not required to make a religious accommodation if it causes “undue hardship.” The term is vague, but the prior record of Ms. Bradfield being accommodated with Sundays off suggest that “undue hardship” did not happen.
T
Trader
Guest
The closest I ever came to that choice was when my company was strongly pushing employees to donate to the United Fund through payroll deductions. Companies that had high percentages of employees donate would get favorable publicity from the United Fund.
At the time Cardinal Cody had asked the people of the Archdiocese of Chicago not to contribute to them because Planned Parenthood was one of the recipients, as well as many Catholic charities. I refused to contribute and explained my reasons. After I did that several other people also gave that reason and the company gave up on the big push. After a few years of declining contributions Planned Parenthood was dropped from the list of recipients.
Most companies do not intend to deny employees the right to practice their religion. They are just not aware that reasonable people can take their religion seriously and need to be taught that charitably.
At the time Cardinal Cody had asked the people of the Archdiocese of Chicago not to contribute to them because Planned Parenthood was one of the recipients, as well as many Catholic charities. I refused to contribute and explained my reasons. After I did that several other people also gave that reason and the company gave up on the big push. After a few years of declining contributions Planned Parenthood was dropped from the list of recipients.
Most companies do not intend to deny employees the right to practice their religion. They are just not aware that reasonable people can take their religion seriously and need to be taught that charitably.
A
antonivs
Guest
For what it is worth, the United Way where I lives lets you choose one specific charity for your donations to go to if you want.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
she knew the terms of the job when she accepted the promotion. If she knew there would be a conflict she should have refused the job. After 15 years it should come as no surprise to her that Macy’s is open on Sunday. The job she was promoted to has Sunday work as a condition of employment, she cannot meet that condition, so she never was a candidate for that job. They did not make special rules just for her, she is under the same rules that govern anyone else in that position.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Annie, I don’t think she was the person who was promoted. Rather it was her former supervisor, who had been giving her Sundays off. The replacement supervisor wasn’t willing to do the same, which is what sparked the conflict.
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
I used to do a LOT of traveling back when I first started working. I’d be in a plant 7 days/week 12hrs/day. I would also tell the manager at the plant - I’m going to Church this weekend. You tell me whether you want me to go Saturday evening or Sunday morning." On rare occasion, I would get some flack. I always responded with “I’m going to church this weekend. I thought I would be accommodating and let you decide when the best time would be. If you don’t want to decide, I’ll decide. You tell me.” And then they would decide.
P
Pax_et_Bonum
Guest
M
MissRose73
Guest
Unfortunately, many employers do not recognize religious needs, and its not just for Catholics. That means people often have to pick putting a roof over their heads, paying their bills, eating, etc over religious observances.
I know they have businesses to run, and some must have people available on certain days, or in certain jobs there must always have some staff on hand like public safety & many medical places. Perhaps, there can be compromises so those people who wish to attend the services of their faith can do so, and still work.
Example a work place needs to always have staffing and have many people that are Christians, Jews and Muslims. Each faith has its Holy Day (Sabbath) where adherents go to services and/or pray.
Example: the Jewish person needs Saturday off to go to the synagogue. He will work either Friday or Sunday depending on the employer’s needs in exchange for his day off.
Example: the Muslim person needs Friday off to go the local mosque. He will work either Saturday and/or Sunday depending on the employer’s needs in exchange for his day off.
Example: the Christian person who is Catholic wishes to attend Mass on Sunday and needs the day off (or partial day off). He works either Friday and/or Saturday depending on the employer’s needs in exchange for his day off.
I know they have businesses to run, and some must have people available on certain days, or in certain jobs there must always have some staff on hand like public safety & many medical places. Perhaps, there can be compromises so those people who wish to attend the services of their faith can do so, and still work.
Example a work place needs to always have staffing and have many people that are Christians, Jews and Muslims. Each faith has its Holy Day (Sabbath) where adherents go to services and/or pray.
Example: the Jewish person needs Saturday off to go to the synagogue. He will work either Friday or Sunday depending on the employer’s needs in exchange for his day off.
Example: the Muslim person needs Friday off to go the local mosque. He will work either Saturday and/or Sunday depending on the employer’s needs in exchange for his day off.
Example: the Christian person who is Catholic wishes to attend Mass on Sunday and needs the day off (or partial day off). He works either Friday and/or Saturday depending on the employer’s needs in exchange for his day off.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I also agree.
L
LilyM
Guest
Exactly. I find it staggering that an employer as large as Macy’s, which doubtless has employees of various faiths and many of no faith at all, could not stipulate that SOMEONE who did not require Sundays off for religious reasons be rostered on to cover this lady’s work.
S
sedonaman
Guest
They all do, but money is fungible. That’s why they let you.
S
sedonaman
Guest
At the start of my career, I was a civilian engineer for the Navy and I knew from the past that they counted participation and not the amount contributed, so I signed up for a modest contribution through payroll deduction. I was an understudy to a senior engineer who made a lot more than I did, but he told me he wasn’t contributing anything. I don’t remember why and said nothing, but thought is was a little cheap of him not to. In the waning days of the drive, a lady approached him withing full view and hearing of his co-workers and said, “Bill, I am here representing our commanding officer, Capt. Davy Jones, to request that you participate in the CFC [the United Fund].” He was visibly embarrassed, but declined still. I felt this should have been done in private, and that was the last time I gave them anything. Henceforth, I sent my check directly to the charity of choice.
Later in life, I began cycling all my contributions through the Church, but have had misgivings recently because of the Bishops’ support for ACORN.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Typical dividing of the baby to avoid a tough decision.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I realize you are invoking the famous story of King Solomon and the two mothers, but could you explain what you object to in the court decision?
S
sedonaman
Guest
Compromise produces two parties who are unhappy instead of just one. In the case of the baby, there would have been three.
A lady at work told me her neighbor built a wall three feet inside her property; her lawyer suggested she ask him to move it back 1 1/2 feet, and she wondered why she had to give up any of her land.
Giving her [lady in the OP question] even part of a day off might be unreasonable if she worked for a small mom-and-pop shop, but in the case of a large company, a whole day might not be.
Then I have difficulty visualizing a Muslim being made to compromise.
Compromise is a reflex response by our system, as though there was a compromise gene in the American make-up.
D
Dale_M
Guest
So are you saying that the court should have ruled that person wasn’t entitled to any hours off on Sunday?
I guess I don’t see the compromise in the court’s decision. It ruled that the employee was entitled to all of Sunday off.
S
sedonaman
Guest
We might be confusing two cases. In the Home Depot case, the employee was offered a part day off. The Macy’s case hasn’t been decided yet, at least not the way I read the article. In any event, Macy’s might be in trouble because it established a precedent by her supervisor’s having adjusted her schedule to give her the whole day off [it doesn’t say a whole day, but that’s what I got out of it]. Having been a supervisor myself, I would think the employer would have to have a really good reason to change and arrangement that had be OK in the past, IOW, one other than a new supervisor’s personal preference.So are you saying that the court should have ruled that person wasn’t entitled to any hours off on Sunday?
I guess I don’t see the compromise in the court’s decision. It ruled that the employee was entitled to all of Sunday off.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Right, and the court ruled that the offer was insufficient, that the employee was entitled to all of Sunday off. This is why I don’t see a compromise in the court’s decision.
As for the Macy’s case, yes, I don’t think a ruling has come down.
R
ringil
Guest
This conflict has never arisen for me as a therapist. If I have a client seeking abortion information or anything else against my faith I would refer them to someone else.
I also pick the populations with whom I work and would avoid working somewhere where ethcal delimas would likely be less common.
I also pick the populations with whom I work and would avoid working somewhere where ethcal delimas would likely be less common.
- Status