The DMV did not report any scheduling or staffing inconveniences during these three months. As the accommodation neared its expiration, the employee requested an extension. He also modified his request; this time, the employee asked for a one-hour break to observe congregational prayer on Fridays from 1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. instead of 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Muslims use a lunar calendar to determine prayer times, and so the congregational prayer had shifted by an hour. The DMV denied his request. The DMV representative responded with: “We cannot accommodate your request to leave during the day on Fridays for your religious observance. An essential function of your position is to work certain hours. Altering your schedule poses an undue hardship on the operational needs of the office.” The employee also sent in a request for a schedule accommodation during the month of Ramadan, in which he must fast from sunrise to sunset. This request was also denied.
The employee claims that he was discriminated against on the basis of religion. In response, he filed an affidavit with the Council on American-Islamic Relations - New York, a civil rights group. “Because I am observing my faith at work, my job is at risk,” the employee admitted. “I believe I am being punished and retaliated against because I am observing my religious practice of attending congregational prayer.” Such discrimination violates the New York State Human Rights Law, which “makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee or job seeker” based on several identifiers, including religion.
Although the employee was given an accommodation for three months without any claim of “undue hardship” by the agency, the DMV argued that requests must be considered on a case-by-case basis to avoid the potential for such hardships to occur. After his requests were denied, the DMV changed the employee’s regular hours to 10:45 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. Even though he is no longer granted an accommodation, the employee continues to leave every Friday at 1:30 p.m. to attend his congregational prayer. He sends in a one-hour leave request each week, which is always denied. After leaving for prayer, the employee is not allowed to clock back in for the remainder of the day, so he cannot complete any of his usual overtime hours, which are deemed mandatory. The employee also claims that the manager has threatened him for “taking unauthorized lunch breaks” when clocking out for prayer, even though he has been submitting requests.
The First Amendment begins with, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Is this refusal to allow a religious accommodation a violation of the employee’s free exercise rights? Since the employee was previously granted a three-month accommodation, I do find this to be a violation of the Free Exercise clause, and I do not find the DMV’s short justification convincing. Since his denial, the employee has been forced to choose between his religion and making a living for himself. He has chosen to continuing practicing his religion, therefore giving up hours of work, which puts him at a financial disadvantage and worsens his relationship with the agency.
As precedent, a 1959 Pennsylvania blue law restricting commerce within the state on Sundays burdened merchants who were Orthodox Jews, for they also had to close their store on Saturdays, their sabbath. Justice Brennan’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Braunfeld v. Brown claims that the Orthodox Jew merchants suffered a state-imposed burden since they cannot both compete successfully with other merchants while also practicing their religion. The same issue can be applied here; the employee faces a state-imposed burden on his wages by not being able to work his overtime hours. Although mandatory, it is unclear as to whether these hours must be worked at a set time during the week. If there is no set time, he could choose to work all his overtime hours earlier in the week; however, this would still be burdensome to his schedule.
Similarly, in Sherbert v. Verner, Seventh-Day Adventist Adell Sherbert filed for unemployment benefits but was denied because she refused to work on Saturdays, her sabbath. Here, the Court claimed that the “appellant’s declared ineligibility for benefits derives solely from the practice of her religion, but the pressure upon her to forego that practice is unmistakable.” There exists no compelling state interest to override the DMV employee’s free exercise rights, leading me to believe that the denial is solely religion-based. The three-month accommodation did not create any problems, and it appears to be easy to move staff schedules around, considering this employee’s schedule has been adjusted multiple times. I find it to be a stronger burden on the DMV to not allow the employee to clock back in after attending prayer. I think it would be less burdensome for the DMV to find someone to cover his one-hour break in comparison to the three-hour shift that he is no longer working. The agency has been able to get a one-hour break covered in the past, so I cannot imagine it being different now that the break is pushed back by an hour.
While the employee did agree to the responsibilities and hours of the job, he is only asking for his 15-minute office break to be combined with his lunch break each Friday, which can easily be accommodated for. He still fulfills his 3.75 hours on Fridays, and so he should be allowed to work additional hours and to take his break without any pushback.
This is not the first time a Muslim has been restricted from attending Jumu’ah. In O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, the Court ruled such free exercise limitations constitutional when applied to prisoners. While it can be argued that we give up some of our rights as state employees, to what degree can employers restrict their employee’s free exercise rights? This cannot be easily answered, but I do think that employees should be able to freely exercise their religion in the workplace through expression of clothing and through accommodations to leave for prayer and observance of religious holidays. Free exercise should be restricted when it involves overt acts of discrimination toward a person or a group. Overall, the employee’s free exercise to leave for prayer is protected under the First Amendment, and I think that the DMV should extend his accommodation.
7 comments:
I agree with the author that this employee deserves to have his prayer schedule accommodated by the DMV. Although I understand that the DMV aims to uphold its policies, that does not excuse violating this employee's free exercise. For me, the biggest concern is the DMV's lack of adequate reasoning for denying this man his free exercise. Therefore, I agree with the author that there is no compelling state interest in denying him, thus, it is likely religious based. The burden is too excessive to warrant a lack of accommodation, which could be done easily.
I agree with the author in claiming that this employee's free exercise rights were violated. The biggest point for me is that he was granted permission to attend his prayer for three months without any pushback. However, when the employee put in a request for continuous accommodations, his request was denied with no justification. This does not seem like it is placing a large burden on the DMV itself, and raises the issue of religious preference and discrimination.
I agree with Sarah in this case. This man's Free Exercise is being violated without any sufficient reasoning. The DMV's lack of appropriate reasoning in denying the employee's request is puzzling, especially considering the fact that it appears evident that the employee is still very much committed to his work and is willing to work overtime. The DMV never even indicated staffing shortages as a means to justify themselves. Denying a one hour break one hour later than usual seems completely unreasonable and forces the man to choose between his religion and financial stability.
I agree with the author and all the previous comments. Upholding the free exercise clause is pertinent. I am a strong believer that religious individuals/groups should be granted accommodations for activities that conflict with their religious beliefs and to uphold religious traditions. I understand that there is sometimes a great societal benefit for uniformity/ facially neutral policies that "equally" affect all peoples, but free exercise should take precedent in most cases, as it is protected in the constitution.
Considering that the DMV did not report any scheduling inconveniences during the time in which the employee had been granted this exemption to practice his religion, I dont understand the rationale for why they could not extend his exemption. I dont think that one hour per week for this man to observe his religious practices would affect the general workings of the DMV at all. I also know that most workplaces tend to be pretty accommodating with other non-religious scheduling conflicts, so I dont entirely understand why this was a problem for them. Either way, I think that the DMV violated this man's right to Free Exercise and that he should be allowed a religious exemption to get out of work for one hour per week for religious observation.
Adding onto Maddy's questioning of the DMV's rationale, there was no compelling state interest that was being pursued and thus there was no reason to directly burden his religion. Since there is no other way to accommodate his request with less restrictive means, I believe that the DMV violated his right to free exercise and he should be allowed an exemption for 1 hour a week. By not accommodating this, the neutrality of religious versus nonreligious excuses may be questioned.
If the DMV would have never allowed any kind of accommodation, than I think the DMV would be in their right to deny these religious requests because the individual first got the job understanding the required work hours, then asked for religious accommodations. However, the DMV did give religious accommodations to the individual for 3 months and then quit with no explanation. Because of this, I believe the DMV is violating his free exercise rights, and I agree with the author in this respect.
Post a Comment