RE: Religious accommodation schemes and discriminatory practices

[Volokh, Eugene]

   My question is what should happen if there is such a rule, not 
necessarily what should happen in such a case.

   And my sense is that such rules are likely pretty common, even 
if usually unstated.  There are two norms, as I understand them, in American 
business life generally.  First, a weak norm:  People are usually expected to 
shake hands in certain situations (though some sometimes substitute hugs, for 
people they are close with).  Second, a very strong norm:  If someone offers a 
hand to shake, you shake it.  Indeed, refusing to shake a hand is usually 
perceived as something of an insult.

   Now of course this norm doesn’t apply if the shaking is visibly 
impossible or very difficult, e.g., if the person has a broken arm, or is 
carrying things in that hand, and the like.  And the person might explain, “I’m 
sorry, but my religion forbids me from shaking hands with people of the 
opposite sex.”  That, though, is where the morale costs come in -- some people 
may perceive this as a slight.  (Query whether a man’s refusal to shake a 
woman’s offered hand would generally be perceived differently from a woman’s 
refusal to shake a man’s offered hand, and whether such a difference should 
matter.)  Should employers be able to insist on people adhering these norms, to 
prevent customers and coworkers from feeling slighted?

   Eugene

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Religious accommodation schemes and discriminatory practices

Exemption requests?  Huh?  There's no indication that the employer here had a 
rule that you must shake the boss's hand, or that the employee sought --let 
alone was denied -- an exemption from such a (nonexistent) rule.

But if an employer were so stupid as to impose such a rule, then yes, I imagine 
the Title VII accommodation requirement, modest as it is, would compel a 
religious exemption.  "morale costs"?  seriously?

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Volokh, Eugene 
<vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote:
   I thought I’d pass along another post from Howard Friedman -- 
any thoughts on how religious accommodation schemes (whether RFRA-like or 
Title-VII-like) should deal with religiously motivated refusals to shake hands 
with members of the opposite sex?  Should there be a categorical rule rejecting 
such exemption requests, on the theory that discriminatory practices should 
never be accommodated?  (Should it matter whether the woman suggests, as an 
accommodation, that she not shake hands with anyone, male or female?)  Or 
should an employer have to accommodate such requests, especially if any morale 
cost stemming from the accommodation comes from coworkers’ emotional reactions 
to the religious practice?

   Eugene

Feed: Religion Clause
Posted on: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:00 AM
Author: Howard Friedman
Subject: Muslim Caseworker Sues Charging Religious Discrimination

A Bangladeshi Muslim woman who was a social worker and had been employed as a 
case manager by a behavioral healthcare company filed suit in an Oregon state 
court last week charging religious, racial, national origin and disability 
discrimination in her termination.  The complaint (full 
text<http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/cascadia.discrimination.suit.pdf>)
 in Rahman v. Cascade Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., (OR Cir., Ct., filed 
10/7/2016), claims, in part, that adverse employment action against her stemmed 
from her refusing for religious reasons to shake hands with men (including her 
boss), her wearing of a hijab, and her praying at work up to three times per 
day. The Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries had dismissed her complaint filed 
with them, finding inadequate evidence of discrimination. (Full 
text<http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/Sharmin%20Rahman%2016-01271-DISMEMO-20160708134816-1.pdf>
 of OBLI order).  The 
Oregonian<http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/10/islamic_woman_who_wouldnt_shak.html>
 reports on the lawsuit.


View 
article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/10/muslim-caseworker-sues-charging.html>

___
To post, send message to 
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

__

Re: Religious accommodation schemes and discriminatory practices

[Eric Rassbach]

Recently there have been a number of "handshake" incidents in Germany, but as 
far as I can tell mostly in the school context, e.g.:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/teachers-walk-out-of-school-ceremony-in-protest-after-muslim-pupil-refuses-to-shake-class-mistress-a7133961.html




From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu  
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu)
Subject: Religious accommodation schemes and discriminatory practices


   I thought I'd pass along another post from Howard Friedman -- 
any thoughts on how religious accommodation schemes (whether RFRA-like or 
Title-VII-like) should deal with religiously motivated refusals to shake hands 
with members of the opposite sex?  Should there be a categorical rule rejecting 
such exemption requests, on the theory that discriminatory practices should 
never be accommodated?  (Should it matter whether the woman suggests, as an 
accommodation, that she not shake hands with anyone, male or female?)  Or 
should an employer have to accommodate such requests, especially if any morale 
cost stemming from the accommodation comes from coworkers' emotional reactions 
to the religious practice?



   Eugene



Feed: Religion Clause
Posted on: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:00 AM
Author: Howard Friedman
Subject: Muslim Caseworker Sues Charging Religious Discrimination



A Bangladeshi Muslim woman who was a social worker and had been employed as a 
case manager by a behavioral healthcare company filed suit in an Oregon state 
court last week charging religious, racial, national origin and disability 
discrimination in her termination.  The complaint (full 
text)
 in Rahman v. Cascade Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., (OR Cir., Ct., filed 
10/7/2016), claims, in part, that adverse employment action against her stemmed 
from her refusing for religious reasons to shake hands with men (including her 
boss), her wearing of a hijab, and her praying at work up to three times per 
day. The Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries had dismissed her complaint filed 
with them, finding inadequate evidence of discrimination. (Full 
text
 of OBLI order).  The 
Oregonian
 reports on the lawsuit.


View 
article...
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Religious accommodation schemes and discriminatory practices

[Marty Lederman]

Exemption requests?  Huh?  There's no indication that the employer here had
a rule that you must shake the boss's hand, or that the employee sought
--let alone was denied -- an exemption from such a (nonexistent) rule.

But if an employer were so stupid as to impose such a rule, then yes, I
imagine the Title VII accommodation requirement, modest as it is, would
compel a religious exemption.  "morale costs"?  seriously?

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Volokh, Eugene  wrote:

>I thought I’d pass along another post from Howard Friedman
> -- any thoughts on how religious accommodation schemes (whether RFRA-like
> or Title-VII-like) should deal with religiously motivated refusals to shake
> hands with members of the opposite sex?  Should there be a categorical rule
> rejecting such exemption requests, on the theory that discriminatory
> practices should never be accommodated?  (Should it matter whether the
> woman suggests, as an accommodation, that she not shake hands with anyone,
> male or female?)  Or should an employer have to accommodate such requests,
> especially if any morale cost stemming from the accommodation comes from
> coworkers’ emotional reactions to the religious practice?
>
>
>
>Eugene
>
>
>
> *Feed:* Religion Clause
> *Posted on:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:00 AM
> *Author:* Howard Friedman
> *Subject:* Muslim Caseworker Sues Charging Religious Discrimination
>
>
>
> A Bangladeshi Muslim woman who was a social worker and had been employed
> as a case manager by a behavioral healthcare company filed suit in an
> Oregon state court last week charging religious, racial, national origin
> and disability discrimination in her termination.  The complaint (full
> text
> )
> in *Rahman v. Cascade Behavioral Healthcare, Inc.,* (OR Cir., Ct., filed
> 10/7/2016), claims, in part, that adverse employment action against her
> stemmed from her refusing for religious reasons to shake hands with men
> (including her boss), her wearing of a *hijab*, and her praying at work
> up to three times per day. The Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries had
> dismissed her complaint filed with them, finding inadequate evidence of
> discrimination. (Full text
> 
> of OBLI order).  The Oregonian
> 
> reports on the lawsuit.
>
>
> View article...
> 
>
> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.