Comments on: Court: No-beard policy violates religious bias law

By: kevin

kevin — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:10:55 +0000

The DC Circuit taking a broad view of employee rights under federal law is certainly not unheard of. If this case is appealed, eventually more moderate minds will overturn this decision.

By: HJD

HJD — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:16:17 +0000

Very interesting debate going on here…

The comment of damned if you do and damned if you don’t is so true. There is no right choice here…only a best choice. Bottom line: The safety of personnel (bearded or not) is key and not just immediate safety – long term affects need also be considered. What are the consequences 20 years from not from working with equipment that is not properly sealed? Ladies and Gentlemen…drum roll please…ANOTHER lawsuit!
Sonia M said it best: “We have a separation of church and state..so given that, do not go to the state to fix a religious dilemma.”
And Kimmie…perhaps a bit of additional education is in your best interest…comments like the one you made are fruitless and are the very reason we as employers are put in a position to defend our actions and hiring practices daily.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:15:44 +0000

Kimmie –

You forgot about the Rastafarians, orthodox Jews and likely more.

By: kimmie

kimmie — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:56:50 +0000

Moral of the Story – Don’t hire the Amish to be your firefighters!

By: Sonia Micek

Sonia Micek — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:45:56 +0000

If the job description clearly states the duties and requirements, it is up to the individual to go to the church elders and get a dispensation from the religious mandate if said exclusion is not clearly stated in their “rulebook.” This has been going on for centuries…Working on the Sabbath, missing Mass on Sundays, Fasting rules for those with medical issues, and I’m sure hazmat/firefighting requiremets as well. We have a separation of church and state..so given that, do not go to the state to fix a religious dilemma.

By: Wayne Spiker

Wayne Spiker — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:20:44 +0000

Agree with RB but the issue is a challenge to OSHA so that as much as possible both sides are reasonably accomadated taking all the thinking out of it once and for all for employee and employer. Certainly after revisiting the issue satisfactorily a new job might not be such a bad idea.

By: R. B.

R. B. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:18:41 +0000

To me, the issue is not what religion is involved…it doesn’t really matter. The issue is the safety of the employee and FEDERAL requirements regarding respirator fit tests. These are not arbitrary requirements of the employer for the sake of appearance. The employer has no choice but to comply with OSHA requirements, which should mean that employees must also comply or lose their job. I don’t have a problem with accommodating / respecting someone’s religious convictions and requirements, regardless of the religion, as long as they can still perform the essential job functions (with or without a reasonable accommodation). I can see that redeploying these employees might not be possible, considering manpower and equipment challenges. This puts the employer in a “damned if you do; damned if you don’t” position that is unconscionable. I’m sure this will be back in court, considering there is no way to comply with the conflicting requirements.

By: waynespiker

waynespiker — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:44:13 +0000

More than just firefighters are involved with this ruling, it also affects Technicians in industrial settings of all types, such as chem. plants, power plants, shipyards, etc. Why should these decisions be decided solely by those working as firefighters (God bless them)? Some folks are already redeployed because of other physical limitations and they still have to comply as a general rule. Further, a religion doesn’t have to be part of an organized religion, almost anyone in or out of mainline religions can claim they are being singled out, certainly their beliefs should not aso be penalized.

By: Say What

Say What — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:56:51 +0000

Everything nowadays violates a law or somone’s civil rights. As an attorney I see this everyday.

By: John

John — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:41:22 +0000

Debbi

And a good opinion at that. :>)