Phil Brooks wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Free exercise is protected by the constitution and by employment discrimination law. Having kids isn't. (Maybe it should be, but I'm surprised you'd even draw that analogy.) So no, employers don't have to accommodate your childcare preferences but they have to accommodate do your religious practice, unless it's an undue hardship. In some jobs not working on Friday would be an undue hardship, in others (like retail or food service where presumably you can work the weekend instead) it wouldn't.
(I thought I remembered "undue hardship" being a pretty low burden but I could be mixing these up - what is it that you only need to accommodate if the burden is de minimis? Disability? Or am I remembering wrong?)
There are millions of people in this country, I among them, and many other countries in the world, who do not feel that that the force of law should be used to privilege the choice to be part of a religion over other laudable choices.
Oh honey. First, that's a really contentious way to frame that. How about protecting people from being punished for exercising their religion? Second, no one was talking about what the law should be, but what it is, which is what you appeared to be asking about. Maybe I should have clarified that I was surprised a lawyer would be analogizing time off for child care and time off for religious observance, since it sounded like you thought they were legally equivalent, which they're not.
So to go back to your original question, first it needs to be religious, then the accommodation needs to not present a greater than de minimis burden to the business. If it's not a religious practice it doesn't get to the burden analysis. Because that is the way our law currently operates. Not sure how raising that here helps the OP figure out how to handle their summer job.
I do believe that employers should be more accommodating of child care needs/concerns, but that occupies a very different place in our legal system so analogizing to something clearly established as a constitutional right doesn't make a lot of sense to me. (Especially since that constitutional right really has fairly minimal protections in the workplace.)
(Also, Nebby, it is a de minimis standard - an employer doesn't have to accommodate if the burden will be more than de minimis. At least according to the EEOC.)