Suit: Job offer pulled after religious accommodation request

[rug]

6 hours ago

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The federal government is suing a Twin Cities-area health system, alleging it rescinded a woman's job offer after she asked for faith-based accommodations.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against North Memorial Health Care System of Robbinsdale. The lawsuit says the health system offered Emily Sure-Ondara, a Seventh-day Adventist, a job as a nurse in 2013, and she then asked to not work from sundown Fridays to sundown Saturdays.

The agency and Sure-Ondara accuse the health system of refusing to accommodate and rescinding the offer, and declining to hire her after she relented. The agency and Plymouth woman are suing based on the alleged retaliation.

North Memorial spokeswoman Lesa Bader says it doesn't comment on active legal complaints, but is committed to "equal employment opportunity for all applicants."

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/state-and-regional/suit-job-offer-pulled-after-religious-accommodation-request/article_dc763272-8553-589a-a2e6-d437a51f847a.html

[katsy]

1. After some soul searching...

I found my inner soul-less one and have to say that I find faith based accommodations to be bs across the board.

[Hortensis]

51. Wow. Okay...

[katsy]

52. Okay what?

At what point does this stop being an accommodation and turn into religious chaos?

stupidist. Law. Ever.

It can't be well defined or equitable to all. Tax exemption has been granted to a church of cannabis. Can they get an exemption to smoke weed at 3pm each workday? Because I'm all for that. If not, why not?

Any thing any belief can be an individual preference. What counts as exemption worthy?

I'm an atheist and find this whole issue odious and discriminatory.

[Hortensis]

64. Katsy, I pushed the button by accident. I thought I'd backed away

as you seemed to have thought carefully about it and I should respect that.

It's just that these days many people on both the right and left seem equally fond of drawing lines that limit the right to liberty and happiness for others. I'm used to it on the right as I'm surrounded by right-wingers. But maybe this is just a warped impression picked up from hanging around forums like this one. I'm having a lot of "wow" moments here.

In any case, you probably see this as simplifying in a good way. I see simplifying accommodations for individual needs right out of the "rules" as something that fits better in fascist societies than free ones. I also feel sure Scott Walker and his friends the Kochs would approve.

Yes, religion is potentially dreadfully dangerous, but IMO, and that of our founding fathers, we deal best with religion through maximizing respect for individual religious freedom and minimizing its institution in government, and we do our worst by trying to suppress it.

Just my opinion.

[katsy]

68. Its a fine line.

As I see it in order to protect everyone's individual liberties, you can favor none.

I see the public arena as just that. Simply public. Personal beliefs belong to the individual. Simple.

In order to not trample other people's beliefs I was taught to keep my personal beliefs to myself.

If people have difficulty performing a job, it's not the employers problem. We aren't talking about shared hardships like sick days and maternity leave or vacations. These were hard fought for by unions for all workers regardless of "beliefs".

imo this religious freedom law is designed to tear apart secular civil rights laws by any lunatic who thinks the world revolves only around them.

Kim Davis and this person, iirc a druggist who didn't want to dispense morning after pills. These aren't freedom fighters. They want to exercise their beliefs at others expense. These laws are better suited to theocracies.

[Hortensis]

70. Well, for all the noise around it, note that people are NOT able to use

the Civil Rights Act to destroy civil rights. They certainly keep trying, but erase all these laws and they'll not only come out way ahead by being free to discriminate based on their own religion, but they'll then be freed up to move on to other lines of attack on our freedoms. The fact that the religious right is trying to twist the law for their benefit should not make us forget that these laws were largely enacted to protect society from abuses by them, among others. The religious right furiously opposed passage of our civil rights laws.

I don't expect to change your mind, of course, but just explain my viewpoint.

In the case of the religious exemption law, it seems to strikes a workable balance between interests and to function acceptably in general. By far most employers are never called upon to make an exemption, but the "reasonable accommodation" and "no undue burden" clauses are available to those that do when they need to deny employment.

Note that for all the noise generated around Kim, the laws involved worked as intended, protecting society and her "employer," even if she didn't care to agree. How she sees herself is irrelevant, no matter how offensive we might find it, or how seditious in intent. What is relevant is that the law worked. It protected us from her. She does now have the option of filing her religious exemption claim in Kentucky after the federal courts have rejected it.

How about the other side: a young woman who graduates high school, studies to be a radiology technician, and then cannot get a job within 2 hours of her home and family because she wears a head scarf? And cannot get another job at the county's largest employer, an insurance billing center, for the same reason? Something that does not affect her work in the slightest way but signaled to the Kims out there that she is not one of them?

Multiply these serious practical problems by large numbers in a nation of 330,000,000 people. They don't just prevent us from truly being a nation where all have the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness but also create significant social and economic problems for society as a whole. A very large and very diverse society needs to find ways to rub along without hurting each other. That's just reality.

[katsy]

72. You are correct.

I am mistaken at times and fail to think things thru.

This is that time. And why I'm here reading du and grateful for people who open my eyes.

I can see why the law is necessary even if odious ppl use it.



On edit: Ty for your patience and for explaining it to me

[Hortensis]

73. You caught me by surprise, Katsy. I'm geared to be contrary. Have a very nice day.

[katsy]

75. And I know when I'm wrong

Have a great day!

[Hortensis]

76. No, please, YOU should have a better day.

[longship]

84. Wow! What a wonderful sub thread. Thanks, you two.

This how to resolve differences.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I don't know about around the Twin Cities

but where I am, all of the job postings pretty much include the shift and day requirements.

So when you apply for a specific job, you know going into it what days you'd be expected to work. I wonder if she applied for a job that had a weekend shift, then, after being accepted, wanted them to not work her during that timeframe.

[longship]

3. Oopsie! They aren't allowed to do that.

That is clear religious discrimination. And no, they are not committed to equal opportunity for all applicants. They might as well put up a sign saying no Jews or Seventh Day Adventists need apply for employment here.

[nichomachus]

5. What bull

I don't care what your religion is. I care if you can work during the times I'm hiring you to work. If you're applying for a job and have odd religious requirements, it's up to you to make sure you can work when the employer expects you to work.

If you're Amish, don't apply for a job as a bus driver. To do so -- and then claim you need a religious exemption is just plain dishonest.

[rug]

6. "I care if you can work during the times I'm hiring you to work."

Are you Andrew Carnegie or Henry Frick?

Switching a shift is such an unreasonable accommodation.

[nichomachus]

9. Actually it is

And it impacts other employees. If you are unavailable at certain times for any reason, not just religious, you need to make that clear up front -- not spring it on them after you get the job. Otherwise you are being dishonest, and I wouldn't want you working for me anyway.

[rug]

13. Actually, it isn't.

Tell that to a worker going on a prenatal checkup, or a funeral, or a school event or any other personal matter that is none of your business. While they're gone you can count all the money you're not paying them.

[Fumesucker]

33. Those are all isolated events that happen to everyone, even atheists

Not quite the same thing as requiring 24 hours of unavailability every week, that really does put an onus on others to cover your ass on an ongoing and consistent basis.

[rug]

37. These "isolated events" happens thosdands of times a day in every workplace.

I haven't even mentioned Ramadan, Confirmation practices or weddings. It's a fact of human life. Corporate practices should never be allowed to trump that.

[Fumesucker]

43. It's hard not to lose some respect for you when you start sandbagging on intelligence

You are much smarter than many of the arguments you make, this one being an excellent example.

I think an employee should have a government mandated number of free days per month or year that they simply don't have to explain and may not be punished for taking. Your boss is not your mother and it's none of their business in the first place why you can't come to work a certain percentage of the time and virtually everyone runs into those situations occasionally.

[rug]

53. Very few businesses have that policy.

I've heard a lot in here about religious privilege. I don't understand the deference given so blandly to corporate privilege.

[Fumesucker]

69. That's why the government needs to mandate it

If they can mandate we have to buy corporate insurance they can mandate we get some time for personal crises that we don't have to explain to our mommie bosses.

Special favored status only for the religious doesn't do anything to oppose corporate privilege. Maybe we need a religion that requires its members only work 9-5 Monday through Friday, all other times being "holy".

[rug]

74. That's what the EEOC is doing in this case.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. It seems that somebody thinks temporary and

permanent are equivalent. However if you attempt to pin him down on his obvious analogy fail he will just switch gears.

[Fumesucker]

44. It's sad watching a person waste a good intellect defending the indefensible

I always wonder if the more extreme of quite a few strains of thought here are really trolling rather than sincere belief, Poe's law should be kept in mind at all times.

[cleanhippie]

45. And yet it happens all day long, every single day.

It must be a compulsion.

[Fumesucker]

47. I think some smart people are prone to getting into feedback loops

It's something I have to watch in my own behavior, luckily I'm sufficiently ADD that I can't stick with any of my own obsessions long enough to really go around the bend with them.

[cleanhippie]

49. Or their just plain assholes.

[Fumesucker]

50. ...

http://www.hark.com/clips/phkhzfsqcr-david-allen-coe-and-hank-williams-jr-were-you-born-an-asshole-1

[rug]

63. You, of all people, should be cautious using that word.

[rug]

62. How about you just point out the flaw in the argument instead of musing about trolling.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Some people are just convinced that their shit doesn't stink.

[rug]

67. And some are just compelled to toss it.

[rug]

61. It seems that somebody does not read very well.

Generally, it's a sign of integrity to attack someone directly, not obliquely. If that is a concern of yours, warren.

[Travis_0004]

10. I would be upset if I had to extra weekend shifts so somebody else could be off Friday and Sat

Wouldn't you?

[rug]

14. No, I wouldn't. I would be upset if the boss didn't hire enogh workers to get the job done.

[Travis_0004]

16. He did hire enough, but some don't work weekend nights, so now there are not enough

If one person works less, somebody else works more. Thats just the way it works.

[rug]

22. And if someone needs an accommodation, be it for religion or disability, she gets it.

That's just the way it works.

[Silent3]

36. If someone needs a reasonable accommodation they get it. What's "reasonable" is the question.

Speaking personally, not interpreting current law, I would consider it unreasonable to have to hire two new when hiring only one new person who was willing to work the same shifts as everyone else would have covered all of the days and shifts that needed to be covered. It would be especially unreasonable for a small business.

As a coworker of the person demanding special accommodations, I'd feel unfairly put out having to give up more of my weekends than I otherwise would to indulge someone else's superstitions. On the other hand, I wouldn't resent helping someone out who had a disability.

Am I to view religious beliefs as a form of disability?

[rug]

38. That is precisely the qestion.

There is a lot of disagreement, and agreement, with your examples, which is precisely why the EEOC, and then the courts, exists.

You are free to view religious beliefs as a disability so long as you also consider the First Amendment to be the disabling condition.

You don't really need a list of all the protected classes covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, do you?

[Silent3]

39. My problem is the difference between protection and accomodation.

Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

They aren't always the same thing. Accommodation has a way of turning into special privilege. I have no desire to give religious people special privileges at my expense.

At a certain point (for me, it's a point reached easily) I expect religious believers to bear the brunt of the inconveniences and costs caused by their silly self-imposed limitations. They are self-imposed limitations, not at all similar to the limitations caused by disability.

[cleanhippie]

48. Thats the key, self-imposed limitations.

What makes one person being unable to work on a certain day because of their choice of religious beliefs any different from another that chooses not to work on a certain day for non-religious reasons?

The only difference I see is that the one that says "god commands me to not work this day" gets a pass, but the one that says, "I can't work that day because my favorite TV shows are on" gets fired.

Both are personal choices, why are both not protected under the law?

[cleanhippie]

46. "Am I to view religious beliefs as a form of disability?"

Uhm, I think you just may be on to something here.

[longship]

11. Um! That would be religious discrimination.

Which is against federal law, which is why the Feds are appropriately taking them into court.

What about the first amendment do people not understand here?

[Warren Stupidity]

41. It isn't a first amendment issue.

You might want to freshen up on your understanding of the 1st. It might be a violation of various federal anti discrimination laws, but again, that is not a 1st amendment issue.

[longship]

42. Well, that is why the EEOC is involved.

But those laws might not have been written without the First Amendment free expression clause. And this case really is about free expression at its core.

So there's that.

But I generally agree, Warren. I stand corrected.

[BlueJazz]

4. So...if a hospital happened to hire (unknowingly) 25 doctors and nurses, people would have to fend..

...for themselves Friday evening until Saturday evening.

[nichomachus]

7. This "religious beliefs" bullshit is getting out of control

As a potential employee, you need to find out the requirements of the job and determine whether you can meet them. If you can't, don't apply for the job. If you do, you're being dishonest.
It's really not that hard.

I once had a guy apply for a job as a sports reporter covering high school sports -- but he couldn't work Friday night or Saturday. Guess when 90 percent of high school sports are played.

So basically, I would have been paying him for sitting around on his ass all week.

If You have restrictions on your time -- for any reason, not just religious -- you need to make that clear during the interview, not after you accept the job.

[rug]

8. Ah, so you are a boss.

That explains your complete contempt for workers' rights and the First Amendment.

[nichomachus]

12. Well thanks for making a sweeping unsupported judgment

Not all bosses are bad -- and not all employees are saints. Some of them are dishonest -- like people who take jobs under false pretenses.

How in the world is this a first amendment issue? That's just a breathtakingly stupid statement.

But now we can see why you never were a boss.

[longship]

17. Free exercise clause. First amendment. Pretty simple actually.

You did notice that it is the federal government taking the action, didn't you?

[rug]

20. The only sweeping unsppoted judgments I see are in yor posts.

I would not even deign to discuss with you the relative merits of bosses versus workers.

But I will say this about the First Amendment: exactly which constitutional right do you think the EEOC is enforcing?

[Travis_0004]

15. I'm not so sure being a boss means he is anti workers rights

I'll admit that I'm a boss to. I own a gas station. If I have a sign that says 'now hiring 3rd shift, and somebody can only work 1st shift, I'm not going to hire them. I'll tell them to wait until there is an opening on 1st shift then apply.

I don't think its unreasable for a hospital to be open on weekends, and I don't think its unreasonable for employees to work a few weekends. I get it, everybody wants Friday and Sat off, but that is not always possible.

[longship]

19. Tell that to an Orthodox Jew or a Seventh Day Adventist.

Or just put a sign on the employment office door: "No Jews or Seventh Day Adventists allowed to work here."

[teenagebambam]

28. Jews and Seventh Day Adventists are welcome to work there

as long as they can fulfill the required duties at the required times.

[longship]

35. There is two issues here, my friend.

1. An employer cannot discriminate because of religion. That's federal law and is why the EEOC is involved with this.

2. The First Amendment of the US Constitution free exercise clause.

Then there's this:
Apparently the federal government thinks this is important enough that they are taking this action.

So there's that.

I have worked with Seventh Day Adventists on multiple occasions. And even though the whole team is working seven days a week, the Seventh Day Adventists did not work on Saturday. Ever.

[cleanhippie]

54. So if one is hired to work the 3rd shift M-F because they applied for that position...

After they get hired they say, "oh, BTW, I can't work Tuesdays and Wednesday at all", the employer is now legally bound to accommodate that?

[longship]

56. That is not an analogous situation.

There are federal laws against discrimination for race, sex, religion, etc.

I've had friends who are Orthodox Jews and Seventh Day Adventists. Some of them have been coworkers. They do not work on the sabbath.

Now it was the Feds who are intervening here on this woman's behalf, the EEOC, whose job it is to protect people like this woman from discrimination.

My position is that this appears like a discriminatory action, something that no employer should be able to get away with. So the EEOC action seems appropriate. Apparently the EEOC agrees, since they have gotten involved. You apparently disagree.

I guess we will have to see how this pans out.


My best to you.

[cleanhippie]

57. But that's my point, why is this being considered discrimination at all?

Her job offer was rescinded not because she's a SDA (illegal discrimination), but because after she was hired she informed management she was unable to perform the job she was hired to do.

Had she informed the Company during the interview process that she was unable to work on certain days, she likely would not have been hired.

[longship]

59. Well, the EEOC filed the case.

Apparently they disagree with you. As do I, a lifelong atheist.

So we'll have to just see how it works out.

[cleanhippie]

55. Why should believing in one of those religions be the only reason you can't not hire them?

If I had the same restrictions on my time I imposed on my employer, but were not for traditional "religious beliefs", I'd be terminated, or not hired at all.

Are we really saying that if an applicant applies for a job that has specific time, dress, and description of the work to be performed, but the applicant states that they are unable to follow those requirements due to personal choice of belief, we cannot use that as justification for not hiring them?

This is different from not hiring them because they are <insert religious belief here>, because THAT is actual discrimination. This is not hiring them because they choose not to be qualified for the job.

[longship]

58. "Can't not hire them"???????

She was made an offer which was reneged on by the employer only when they found out that as a Seventh Day Adventist she would not work on the sabbath.

There was no "can't not hire" involved. She was hired! They made her an offer.

Sorry my friend, your arguments are not convincing to me, let alone your analogies.

Let's see how this works out.

[cleanhippie]

71. I feel like you are intentionally ignoring my questions to you.

I've asked several times and you continue to ignore it. I'll try once again.

Are we really saying that if an applicant applies for a job that has specific time, dress, and description of the work to be performed, but the applicant states that they are unable to follow those requirements due to personal choice of belief, we cannot use that as justification for not hiring them?

[longship]

77. Yes, but only to the extent that it does not violate federal law.

Which is what I have been trying to post about. Apparently the federal government agrees with me, as the EEOC is who has filed charges, which is what I have also been trying to post about.

So, if you have a problem with this, I suggest that you take it up with them. I have no jurisdiction in the matter except that I agree with them filing the charges. You disagree, and I am fine with that.

So why do you keep pressing points which I have clearly stated that I disagree with?

This is a clear violation of federal law, and your non-analogous arguments have not convinced me otherwise.

Regardless, thank you for your responses.

[longship]

80. Read my post below concerning the details of the case, below.

Thanks.

[MellowDem]

18. One day...

I'm thinking the court will decide religious accommodations are unconstitutional. You can't give special treatment to people just because their beliefs are supernatural. That violates equal protection under the laws.

Because it used to go without saying that religious privilege should be accommodated when everyone claimed a religion, but now that people are ditching religion, the question of why religious beliefs should get accommodation and secular beliefs should not becomes louder every day, and every answer sounds more ludicrous than before.

[rug]

21. In the sweet by and by

[Lordquinton]

65. Religious accommodation is discrimatory towards non-believers

And like someone said, would they make am exception for e church of cannibis? Would the same people here who are cheering for her support the case of drug tests for them?

What about religions like Islam that have it written in that it's fine to break any religion code to accommodate real life? That alone invalidates all the head scarf lawsuits alone, not to mention endangering yourself on rhamadon by fasting.

[Squinch]

23. Do they give their Jewish employees that same sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and do they give

give their Christian employees Sundays off? And Pastafarians, do they get their Thursdays off?

If so, this is a perfectly reasonable request (though the organization that allows it has some pretty absurd practices.)

If not, Emily should be told to go scratch.

[Adsos Letter]

24. I would be interested to know if she "relented" after consulting with a pastor

I think the SDA Church allows essential services, such as nurses, police officers, firefighters, etc., to work Sabbaths.

Just curious as to whether this is personal conviction, or a misunderstanding of church doctrine.

The article didn't give any further info.

[rug]

25. The article doesn't say but this is the SDA stated position:

8) Seventh-day Adventist Health-care Institutions. Adventist health care institutions provide the only contact many people have with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Adventist hospitals are to be more than merely health-care delivery systems. They have a unique opportunity to bear a Christian witness 24 hours a day to the communities they serve. In addition, they have the privilege of presenting the Sabbath message by example every week. In healing the sick and loosing the bonds of the physically infirm, even on the Sabbath, Christ set an example that we look to as the basis for establishing and operating Adventist health-care institutions. Therefore, an institution offering medical care to the public must be prepared to minister to the needs of the sick and suffering without regard to hours or days.

- snip -

The following applications of Sabbath observance principles are recommended:

a. Provide emergency medical care willingly and cheerfully whenever needed with high levels of excellence. However, neither Adventist institutions nor physicians and dentists should provide the same office or clinic services on the Sabbath as they do on weekdays.

b. Discontinue all routine activities that could be postponed. Usually this means a complete closing of those facilities and departments not immediately related to patient care, and the maintenance of a minimum number of qualified people in other departments to handle emergencies.

c. Postpone elective diagnostic and therapeutic services. Decisions as to what is necessary or of an emergency nature should be made by the attending physician. If this privilege is abused, it should be dealt with by the hospital administration. Nonadministrative institutional employees should not become involved in making these decisions nor should they be obliged to confront the attending physicians. Misunderstandings may be avoided by making it clear in medical staff bylaws that only surgical, diagnostic, or therapeutic procedures which are not postponable because of the condition of the patient, will be done. A clear understanding with all who are appointed to staff membership, at the time of appointment, will do much to avoid misunderstandings and abuses.

Convenience and elective surgery should be discouraged or limited on Fridays. Procedures thus scheduled allow the patient to be in the hospital over the weekend and hence lose fewer days at work. However, this places the first post-operative day, usually with the most intensive nursing care, on the Sabbath.

https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/sabbath-observance/

It appears routine, non-emergency medical care is to be avoided on the Sabbath, but never emergency care. The outcome of this case will turn on the nature of her position.

As it turns out, the Seventh Day Adventists themselves operate an extensive health care system.

http://www.adventisthealthsystem.com/

[Adsos Letter]

26. Hospitals, clinics, etc., as well as schools.

They are major components of the denomination's work.

From what I remember, it is also allowed for police, fire, etc., but there has been change in these areas over the years, especially in terms of military service.

Thanks for the response rug.

[rug]

27. I think you're right about the police and fire departments. It's a logical extension.

Can't say as I ever met an SDA cop, but I'd have had no way of knowing.

[Adsos Letter]

29. .

[longship]

85. The answer is "yes". She relented, and then the offer was withdrawn.

See my post down thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=212932

Apparently your observation about the SDA church was on target.

The problem was that the hospital violated federal law.

[Adsos Letter]

86. Thank you, longship.

So it seems she made a request rather than a demand. The hospital's action is being interpreted as retaliation for the request, hence the legal action by the Fed's.

[SheilaT]

31. Anyone wanting to work in the health care field,

or as a cop or a fire fighter or an airline pilot, just to name a few others, needs to understand that they will be working weekends, holidays, and all sorts of odd hours.

I think that those here who think that people who apply to work in such fields, and then should be accommodated for their Sabbath, thereby dumping a greater burden their co-workers, I think that such people have never themselves worked shift work. I have. And you take the shifts as you get them. Sometimes seniority allows you to have the hours and days off you want, sometimes you continue to work your share of the crappy shifts so long as you're employed.


There are plenty of jobs, even in health care, that don't involve working weekends or holidays, such as in an office. Even if this woman converted to her current religion last month, she either works the shifts needed, or finds another job.

[Ilsa]

32. I agree completely.

If you want to work at a hospital as a staff nurse, you're expected to work weekends once or twice a month. Apply for different work if you don't want to carry your share of those shifts.

[SoCalNative]

34. Perhaps she should apply for a job

at a Seventh Day Adventist run facility then. They do have them.

[TygrBright]

60. The key issue here is TIMING.

The prospective employer SHOULD have stated the general hours and schedule of work BEFORE making the offer, and then asked the prospective employer if they would have any problems with the schedule and/or need any accommodations.

The prospective employee is THEN free to ask for schedule accommodations, with or without referring to the religious nature of the need (because the reason is irrelevant, even if it's easy for the employer to deduce.)

AFTER that, the employer is free to negotiate the schedule, with or without the accommodation. They can make an offer of employment, based on what's been negotiated, or not, and no harm/no foul if they don't.

However, if they DON'T discuss the expected schedule/hours, and make the offer, they run into just this kind of mess.

Sloppy HR procedure, very sloppy.

interestedly,
Bright

[longship]

81. It's worse than that, Bright.

Read my details, below, from the EEOC.

She said that she would work Saturdays and they withdrew the offer anyway. That is a clear violation.

[TygrBright]

82. VERY low. Also *stupid.*

This incident right here is why competent HR people and interviewers should ALWAYS bring up the hours/schedule and invite any accommodation requests and/or negotiation prior to making the offer, as part of the interview itself.

NEVER after the offer's been made.

To do it this way seems to indicate the offer was not a good-faith offer right from the start.

They're looking at a finding for the complainant, IMO.

wearily,
Bright

[longship]

78. Here are the details, from the EEOC.

Last edited Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:20 AM - Edit history (2)

PRESS RELEASE
9-16-15

EEOC Sues North Memorial for Retaliating Against Job Applicant
Federal Agency Alleges Health System Withdrew Job Offer From Employee Who Requested Religious Accommodation

MINNEAPOLIS - North Memorial Health Care, an independent health system based in Robbinsdale, Minn., violated federal law when it withdrew a job offer made to an applicant after she requested a religious accommodation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to EEOC's lawsuit, North Memorial offered Emily Sure-Ondara a position as a registered nurse. Sure-Ondara, a Seventh-Day Adventist, then requested a schedule that accommodated her religious practices. North Memorial determined it would not grant the requested accommodation. Sure-Ondara told North Memorial that she was willing to work without the accommodation, but North Memorial withdrew her job offer anyway.

Julianne Bowman, director of the federal agency's Chicago District, said that in the EEOC's pre-suit administrative investigation, the agency learned that North Memorial specific-ally referenced the request for accommodation in denying Sure-Ondara employment. After the investigation, the agency attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process, but was unable to do so.

The conduct alleged in EEOC's lawsuit violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees and job applicants from retaliation when they engage in activities protected under the law, such as requesting an accommodation for religious reasons. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. North Memorial Health Care, Civil Action No. 15-cv-3675), seeks damages for Sure-Ondara as well as injunctive relief barring retaliation against employees or job applicants who request religious accommodations.

"Federal law protects the right of job applicants or employees to request a religious accommodation without fear that the request will lead to retaliation," said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for EEOC's Chicago District. "While Title VII allows employers to reject an accommodation request if certain circumstances are met, it is unlawful for an employer to take action against the employee based on such a request."

Jean P. Kamp, the Chicago District's associate regional attorney, added, "Job applicants and employees may request a religious accommodation at any time. Applicants are not required to notify a potential employer about an accommodation issue before starting a job, though that's what Ms. Sure-Ondara did. This lawsuit is about what happened next. We plan to show North Memorial's decision to withdraw the job offer after Sure-Ondara's request was retaliatory and unlawful."

According to its website, https://www.northmemorial.com/, North Memorial operates hospitals, clinics and other related medical services in the Twin Cities area.

EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis. The EEOC's legal team in its Minneapolis Area Office will conduct this litigation under the management of the agency's Chicago District Office.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

on edit: (Emphasis mine.)

[rug]

79. Thanks for finding the details.

[longship]

83. You're welcome, rug. Glad to oblige.

I stuck out my big fat opinion in this thread and I thought I'd better back it up with some facts.

As an atheist, I am willing to accept that some people have strongly held religious beliefs. Where it does not hurt the public or the beliefs are not imposed on others, I have no problem with that.

This is one of those cases, especially since the woman only asked about a religious accommodation.

As always, my best.