Question

Religious Rowan worked for many years for a hotel restaurant as a waitstaff person. The restaurant had a family-style menu and was closed on Sundays. The restaurant was owned and operated by the hotel and primarily served a family oriented clientele. The restaurant was acquired by a national chain that changed the dynamic of the restaurant, making it into a bar and pub that was open 7 days per week.

Religious Rowan is a devout conservative churchgoer and does not believe in working on Sundays, because that is a time for church, nor does Rowan believe in the consumption of alcohol. Rowan told the new employers that due to religious beliefs, working any Sunday shifts and/or taking orders and serving alcohol to clients would be impossible.

The employer agreed that Rowan could always have Sundays off but insisted that Rowan get certified by the state to be able to sell alcohol as that was a new requirement of the waitstaff position. Rowan refused, and because there were always several other waitstaff personnel available that could take and serve alcohol orders, the restaurant said that was fine, because Rowan was otherwise an excellent employee.

Rowan was able to serve for 3.5 years in the same role with the accommodations of not working on Sundays or being involved in selling or serving alcohol without a problem. However, a new restaurant manager came in and determined that in order for the restaurant to improve its efficiency of operations, which was a goal the new manager was hired to implement, Rowan could still skip Sunday shifts but could no longer be accommodated by not participating in the sale of alcohol to customers as that pulled other waitstaff off of their assigned tables and was not perfectly efficient. Rowan refused to get licensed to sell alcohol or to serve it and was subsequently fired for insubordination. Rowan then sued for the failure of the hotel to accommodate her religious beliefs. How should the court rule and why?

Answer 1

For establishing discrimination on the ground of religion, the person must belong to a specific religion, and treated differently due to his /her religious practices, and should have suffered adversely due to the action of employer. It should also be evident that the employer did not provide reasonable accommodation for the employee, to enable him /her to practice his /her religion while at work. In this case, the plaintiff was accommodated reasonably by granting him thhe Sunday weekoff and by allowing him, not to take orders for alcoholic drinks, as long as another employee was available. However, with changing work conditions and need to improve efficiency, such accommodation was no longer reasonable and plaintiff was asked to serve alcohol by the superiors which he refused, leading to his termination. It was evident that employer tried to accommodate the employee as long as possible, but with new conditions of efficiency, it was no longer reasonable. Since alcohol serving was a part of the job of plaintiff, his ability to work would be severely restricted if he refused to do so, and it was in no way reasonable for the employer. The court, therefore should rule in favour of employer, which tried its level best to accommodate the employee's religious freedom.