Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,149,295 times
Reputation: 3814
Its absurd.
He CANT do the job if he has an issue with touching any product in the store. Its his responsibility to know the products, and he should have known before he even applied that the store sold something he could not touch. How can he even take the job, with these personal restrictions?
The store/business shouldnt suffer because he has good reasons he CANT do the job. Im sure they wont have a problem finding someone that can.
Ive seen some cashiers, that looked 'delicate' about touching pork and some seafoods, wear gloves and usually bag it seperately always before including it with other groceries. They adjust in whatever way they feel is appropriate and acceptable, in order to be able to actually do the job.
He CANT do the job if he has an issue with touching any product in the store. Its his responsibility to know the products, and he should have known before he even applied that the store sold something he could not touch. How can he even take the job, with these personal restrictions?
I don't see that as the case here. Federal law requires employers to 'reasonably accommodate' an employee's religious observances, practices and beliefs; unless the employer can demonstrate such accommodation would cause an "undue hardship" to the employer's business.
In this case, it appears Costco attempted to accommodate this Muslim employee's religion by assigning him other duties. There are certainly legal precedents; this one is from 2007:
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,149,295 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch33
I don't see that as the case here. Federal law requires employers to 'reasonably accommodate' an employee's religious observances, practices and beliefs; unless the employer can demonstrate such accommodation would cause an "undue hardship" to the employer's business.
In this case, it appears Costco attempted to accommodate this Muslim employee's religion by assigning him other duties. There are certainly legal precedents; this one is from 2007:
Its a grocery store. If hes going to stock, he has to be able to stock everything. Has nothing to do with religous accomodation of observences, and everything to do with not disrupting the business. Those carts - sometimes those packages leak, you know.
He cant ever be a cashier, because he cant tolerate certain products the store sells. You never know when a ham or some pork chops, hotdogs, breakfast sausage, etc might come along. Same with unloading and stocking. You never know. Its like they have to also hire one totally non-religous guy to follow this guy around to touch the products he cant touch for him. Its absurd.
Islam teaches that pigs are unclean and eating pork is a sin, and some Muslims feel selling or handling pork is also forbidden because it would make them complicit in the sins of others.
If Target can reasonably accomodate them is one thing, and great for the company and employees. But if its such a sin, and selling and being amidst these products makes them complicit in the sins of others, why would they work for the company? Isnt it a sinful company, and arent they becoming complcit in the sins of said company by working for them, then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.