1) Go to Read http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.

cfm and
answer the following: What are the conditions that an employer can claim
undue hardship in denying accommodation for religion?
1) Accommodations are considered undue hardships if it is costly, compromises
workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other
employees, or requires other employees to do more than their fair share of
potentially hazardous or burdensome work.
2) I am a pagan that does not believe in a deity but I do worship and
believe in nature and the innate goodness of humans. Is this a religion
according to the definition? How?
2) Absolutely. Not only major religions are protected but also also others who have
sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs. Such as Agnostic, Satanic, even just
strongly held moral codes.
3) Do you think that an individual should be able to deny treatment
and/or refuse to participate in medical activities that they believe
compromise their religious beliefs? Two examples: A clinical psychologist
at a hospital refuses to counsel homosexuals claiming it is against their
religious beliefs to condone in any way homosexuality and 2) A nurse
refuses to work in the operating room of a hospital which has abortions.
What does the EEOC state about these cases:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2004/titlevii_religious_expression.ht
ml
3) No. Simply put these situations create undue hardship for the employer. With the
psychologist, it requires hiring additional psychologists or loss of revenue due to
clients being turned away. If, however, there are already other psych staff then
simply scheduling can handle this accommodation. With the nurse I dont think
there is a reasonable accommodation to be had for either party.
4) In 3 above describe some ways an employer could make a
reasonable accommodation to allow an employee to work without
compromising their religious values.
4) See above. Specifically, if there are more than one psychologist on site
scheduling identifying homosexuals with a different psychologist when possible is
easy enough but it becomes a real issue if it is a mental health emergency or they
are not identifying as homosexual. So if they are willing to work within those
confines it could work. I think it would be enough to protect the hospital from a
discrimination lawsuit from psychologist or patient.
5) Read Case study 1 on ppg. 522-523 and answer the case questions
on page 523. This case study is put in because no matter how distasteful
we might find someone elses religious views they are still protected
under Title VII.
5-1) Immediately put employee under observation to make sure his religious beliefs
stayed out of the workplace. If there was evidence, see Q5-3. An underhanded and
hypocritical boss might transfer him to a department where a minority would be his
supervisor to nudge him into mistreating co-workers, however, in my opinion this is
just as bad as actually mistreating others.
5-2) No, although his religion is repugnant he has the right to believe them and they
should be protected like anyone elses beliefs or the whole thing will fall apart under
its own hypocrisy.
5-3) First discipline them, offer retraining, then if behavior continues fire them.
Which is how I would treat anyone that mistreated other employees. Religious
beliefs in this case are a mote point.
6) Please read Case Study 2 on ppg. 524-27 and answer the following:
(This is a long case but it is important for the concept of proseltyzing in
the workplace.)
In addition to the case study please answer the following:
1. Is there any way the employer could have avoided this situation?
Explain.
6-1) Perhaps only an employee privacy in the employee handbook and/or
notice of tolerance of others differences that the employee sign. But, it
can be difficult to predict others behavior and preempt it. Such as with
this case.
2. If the employee had initially told the employer of her plan to write
the letters and the employer had told her not to send them,
would the outcome be any different if she had done so anyway?
6-2) No. Because even though she would have then fulfilled the 2 nd
requirement of prima facie her action of sending the letters would still
have resulted in violating their own religious freedoms or constituted
religious harassment.

3. What would you have done if your employees wife called as Mrs.
LaMantia did?
6-3) My response would have been the same as the one Tulon took.
Investigate and take corrective action. I might have asked the victims if
they were comfortable with discipline other than termination and if Ms.
Chalmers agreed to never do it again she might have still remain
employed.
4. Because Chalmers was a supervisor could Tulon Company have
been sued by either of the recipients of the letter? Think of being
an employer representative as a supervisor.
6-4) Absolutely. They might have been seen as supporting her views.