Would be curious to know if she dressed up for Halloween. If she is parading around in a witches costume at Halloween, but decides to get all high and mighty now that is just ridiculous. I AM NOT SAYING SHE DID THIS. The statement is hypothetical.
Al, I also don’t follow your analogy. I understand the point you are trying to make, but witches (to my knowledge) did not try and systematically wipe out the Christian people. Maybe making a Jewish person dress up as a pig or eat pork would be a better example.
The “normal course of employment” would depend on what they normally do at this library. If they have done these types of events in the past, complete with dress-up, then the Harry Potter event would have been normal and asking the employee to dress up would not have been out of line. As long as expectations are made clear at the outset the employee has no right to complain and should be disciplined.
Dustin, it’s the “avoiding all appearance of evil” bit – stressing the appearance. Though to take that statement at true worth she would have to avoid providing people with literature that is objectionable according to her faith because by providing it she is implicitly endorsing it as having value and worth (unless she tells everyone that checks out a copy of “The Twin Towers” that it’s the devil’s work).
What it really boils down to is ala carte religion. Terry Pratchett put it best in “Going Postal”: “But … but you can’t treat religion as a sort of buffet, can you? I mean, you can’t say, ‘Yes please, I’ll have some of the Celestial Paradise and a helping of the Divine Plan but go easy on the kneeling and none of the Prohibition of Images, they give me wind.’ It’s table d’hote or nothing, otherwise … well, it could get silly.”
Gal. 5:20 forbids witchcraft, as do many Old Testament passages. It’s no different than making her dress as a ***** or a Muslim. It’s against her religion, so she can’t be forced into it by her employer. If she got a job in a strip joint and refused to strip that would be different.
The employers responsibility would end at telling her that they sometimes do events that require dressing in costume. They wouldn’t have to be specific.
It would be interesting to know if she had participated in other events of this type for this employer.
And I stand by my Terry Pratchett quote. It’s table d’hote or nothing.
May employers avoid hiring Jews by having an annual “Nazi Day,” or blacks by having “KKK Day”?
“Reasonable accomodation” means that the employer mustn’t incur unreasonable expenses or inconveniences in the accomodation of employees’ religious beliefs, and does not require him to accomodate in ways other employees are not accomodated. If a pregnant woman’s doctor restricts her from lifting 25lbs, and an injured male employee’s doctor places him on the same restriction due to a non-work related back injury, if the employer accepts one restriction, he must accept both. He may, however, terminate both employees for being unable to work.
The employee in question served in another way during the event in question, but simply refused to dress in a way her conscience would not allow. Afterwards her duties were made onerous, so it looks like she was accomodated then retaliated against for her beliefs.
Al, did you read somewhere else that she participated in the event? What I read says she refused and was suspended. The article then goes on to say she did x work before the dispute, and upon returning after the dispute did y work. I didn’t see anything where she participated. I read that she was suspended then given tasks she couldn’t handle.
My bad. Missed the words “prior to.” But it was odd that she wasn’t fired on the spot but the apparently tried to get her to quit by making her do lifting despite having a pacemaker. “I know, let’s try to kill her! Then she can’t sue us!”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Would be curious to know if she dressed up for Halloween. If she is parading around in a witches costume at Halloween, but decides to get all high and mighty now that is just ridiculous. I AM NOT SAYING SHE DID THIS. The statement is hypothetical.
Al, I also don’t follow your analogy. I understand the point you are trying to make, but witches (to my knowledge) did not try and systematically wipe out the Christian people. Maybe making a Jewish person dress up as a pig or eat pork would be a better example.
The “normal course of employment” would depend on what they normally do at this library. If they have done these types of events in the past, complete with dress-up, then the Harry Potter event would have been normal and asking the employee to dress up would not have been out of line. As long as expectations are made clear at the outset the employee has no right to complain and should be disciplined.
Dustin, it’s the “avoiding all appearance of evil” bit – stressing the appearance. Though to take that statement at true worth she would have to avoid providing people with literature that is objectionable according to her faith because by providing it she is implicitly endorsing it as having value and worth (unless she tells everyone that checks out a copy of “The Twin Towers” that it’s the devil’s work).
What it really boils down to is ala carte religion. Terry Pratchett put it best in “Going Postal”: “But … but you can’t treat religion as a sort of buffet, can you? I mean, you can’t say, ‘Yes please, I’ll have some of the Celestial Paradise and a helping of the Divine Plan but go easy on the kneeling and none of the Prohibition of Images, they give me wind.’ It’s table d’hote or nothing, otherwise … well, it could get silly.”
Gal. 5:20 forbids witchcraft, as do many Old Testament passages. It’s no different than making her dress as a ***** or a Muslim. It’s against her religion, so she can’t be forced into it by her employer. If she got a job in a strip joint and refused to strip that would be different.
I doubt that she was told at hire, “And you might have to dress up as a witch.”
The employers responsibility would end at telling her that they sometimes do events that require dressing in costume. They wouldn’t have to be specific.
It would be interesting to know if she had participated in other events of this type for this employer.
And I stand by my Terry Pratchett quote. It’s table d’hote or nothing.
May employers avoid hiring Jews by having an annual “Nazi Day,” or blacks by having “KKK Day”?
“Reasonable accomodation” means that the employer mustn’t incur unreasonable expenses or inconveniences in the accomodation of employees’ religious beliefs, and does not require him to accomodate in ways other employees are not accomodated. If a pregnant woman’s doctor restricts her from lifting 25lbs, and an injured male employee’s doctor places him on the same restriction due to a non-work related back injury, if the employer accepts one restriction, he must accept both. He may, however, terminate both employees for being unable to work.
The employee in question served in another way during the event in question, but simply refused to dress in a way her conscience would not allow. Afterwards her duties were made onerous, so it looks like she was accomodated then retaliated against for her beliefs.
Al, did you read somewhere else that she participated in the event? What I read says she refused and was suspended. The article then goes on to say she did x work before the dispute, and upon returning after the dispute did y work. I didn’t see anything where she participated. I read that she was suspended then given tasks she couldn’t handle.
My bad. Missed the words “prior to.” But it was odd that she wasn’t fired on the spot but the apparently tried to get her to quit by making her do lifting despite having a pacemaker. “I know, let’s try to kill her! Then she can’t sue us!”
Thanks for the laugh, Al. Not that death is funny, but the way you put it was. Killing her slowly….