SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,680
- 280
- Banned
- #201
The difference is their actions are having a direct impact on production
Difference? Difference to what? There is no "The difference here" statement you can possibly make that is anything more than jibberish. What I said was the law. The law does not have exceptions just because you want it to. Like it or not, that is the law.
that evidently has gotten worse as time went on
Evident how? There is no evidence of that here. You are assuming it to be true. A court of law will not make that assumption.
Thanks for demonstrating my point, though. Through your statement you acknowledge that upon a claimant's prima facie showing of discrimination we've discussed thus far, it would become necessary for evidence to be produced to show that any implied productivity problems had "gotten worse" as you say.
I do love me some irony.
and the company cannot reasonably accommodate without screwing up production
If that were true, then how will the company explain the fact that it did provide the accommodation previously?
which is the goal of said company, i.e. Make shit. Accommodation does not include reducing the companies ability to perform their work profitably and economically.
In fact, it does include that. The very definition of providing accommodation means that the company expends kind of resource. It might be investing in equipment or products that assist employees. It might me that minor losses in productivity.
For example: I am a Front Office manager at a hotel. My staff generally have to be able to stand on their feet all day long. But, if one of my staff members becomes pregnant I need to be able to provide her with reasonable accommodations. That might mean that I have to order some kind of stool or an appropriately tall chair so that she can sit at her terminal without having to be on her feet all day. In addition, I may have to accept the fact that I can't expect her to do much in the way of secondary miscellenous tasks that my staff are normally expected to do (like organizing and stocking supply shipments which often consist of heavy boxes, or assisting in responding to amenities requests, helping guests with luggage, etc). All these limitations result in lost productivity, possibly costing additional labor costs, or reducing revenues if service delays lead to guest complaints.
You seem to be taking the illogical and unjustifiable position that reasonable accommodation is limited to circumstances that end up requiring no accommodation at all, and that the moment a circumstances requires some degree of accommodation, it ceases to be a reasonable accommodation.
Plus they still get two 10 minute breaks and a meal break, considering the spread of the prayers, that should be enough for them. It may require them to eat quicker, or skip a smoke break, but its up to them to make the decision between their religion and their other activities.
That is irrelevant. The issue is not whether they are given any breaks at all. The issue is that a policy change created a conflict between their ability to engage in sincere religious practices and maintain their employment at the same time.
You continue to ignore that this is not a general circumstance, and that if this were to result in unemployment proceedings or a lawsuit the problem here would be that accommodation was previously provided.