Religious Accommodation in the American Workplace
This article examines how the us Supreme Court’s decision in eeoc v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. represents a shift in the Court’s analysis in religious accommodation cases under §701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of this decision lower courts are now likely to provide gre...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
2017
|
| Dans: |
Journal of law, religion and state
Année: 2017, Volume: 5, Numéro: 1, Pages: 25-47 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Religion
religious accommodation
employment law
Title vii
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Résumé: | This article examines how the us Supreme Court’s decision in eeoc v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. represents a shift in the Court’s analysis in religious accommodation cases under §701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of this decision lower courts are now likely to provide greater protection to employees requesting accommodation under §701(j) for two reasons. First, Abercrombie held that an employer can be liable for religious discrimination even if it does not have “actual knowledge” of an applicant’s or employee’s need for religious accommodation. Additionally, the Court also determined that religious accommodation claims can be raised as disparate treatment claims, and in doing so emphasized for the first time that §701(j) mandates more than formal equality. This is an important shift since previous federal decisions often relied on formal equality in limiting an employer’s accommodation obligation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2212-4810 |
| Contient: | In: Journal of law, religion and state
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/22124810-00501002 |