gious accommodation would have to disclose
>> that fact
>> up front. In practical terms, no employer with any choice at all
will hire
>> such a person. Proving that sort of employment discrimination is almost
>> always impossible in individual cases
>> Marc Ster
unlike for example, the handicapped, all job
> >> applicants requiring religious accommodation would have to disclose
> >> that fact
> >> up front. In practical terms, no employer with any choice at all will hire
> >> such a person. Proving that sort of emp
ter
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:56
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Fouche V. NJ Transit
The district court order in Fouche, reported at 2011 WL 2792450, seems
unremarkable; the CBA was straightforward; a more senior driver returned to
work, exercised his seniority rights not to work on Sunday,
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
> > Masinter
> > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:56
> > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: Re: Fouche V. NJ
Michael Masinter
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:56
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Fouche V. NJ Transit
>
> The district court order in Fouche, reported at 2011 WL 2792450, seems
> unremarkable; the CBA was straightforward; a more senior driver returned to
>
The Court rejected the argument that the employee has a duty to disclose his
religion, and then not to change it, in Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n
(1986 or 87). That was a constitutional case, not a Title VII case.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:31:01 -0400
Michael Masinter wrote:
>Marc,
>
>I
individual
cases
Marc Stern.
-Original Message-
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
Masinter
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:56
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Fouche V. NJ Transit
The district court order
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Masinter
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:56
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Fouche V. NJ Transit
The district court order in Fouche, reported at 2011 WL 2792450, seems
unremarkable; the CBA was straightforward; a more senior
The district court order in Fouche, reported at 2011 WL 2792450, seems
unremarkable; the CBA was straightforward; a more senior driver
returned to work, exercised his seniority rights not to work on
Sunday, bumping Fouche into a Sunday assignment, and Fouche responded
by not coming to work
An unpublished opinion of the Third Circuit in Fouche v.NJ Transit (11-3031)
portends excluding large classes of jobs from the protection of Title VII.A
full time driver sought to be accommodated in not driving on Sunday. The
employer claimed its labor contract precluded accommodation; whethe
10 matches
Mail list logo
