no need to redact

if its something that can be accomodated nothing else needs to be said

if its not, than the conditions of employment are repeated with the applicant agreeing to understand'



easy peasy

It is easier than this. In the interview process..
I can ask in my state and I have many times.
Do you understand the job description and all it entails.

If they say NO I explain my expectations in detail, once I know they know I can and do ask... Is this going to be a problem for you in any way shape or form.. IF so I need to know this now at this time. Is it a deciding factor can be and I am in my legal rights.

During the yearly Eval's I can and do ask this same question again and again. And quite honestly, they can and are usually terminated if possible.


I need to know that my staff can and do perform at top performance. It isn't personal it is business.
Maybe harsh to many and yet In my field I don't really care nor I expect you to care what my personal belief's are.. Personal beliefs stop on the outside of the office door.

The idiot knew the job description, when she signed up.

That she decided, three years into the job, that she's above having to perform the duties of her job.
The slag deserved to be fired.

it should be that way, but with iur current laws it's not.

its not easy peasy because if it's something that you can't accommodate and you refuse to hire them because you know their religious beliefs will hinder their ability to do the job
..then you are guilty of religious discrimination and will be fined faster than you can say fired

She hasn't been fired yet.

I would be interested to know whether or not she is paid during this "administrative leave."

Because it's not just due to her beliefs, it's because of her beliefs and the people she directly works with and rely on (at least 1) are complaining about her.


It seems the airline is taking the best course of action.

They didn't outright fire her.

But they did remove her from a situation where it could easily have started to become more adversarial with her coworkers.

I can't see her being moved to another route, or with another crew, and the problem not arising again.

Is she a part time flight attendant working weekends? Or is this her sole career?
Maybe that doesn't matter.
But I think it creates more of a cost and burden if she's full time.

Other than that, I don't think she has all that much of a case, really, because of:
"{Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship

An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work."

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Luggage handlers aren't required, as per job description, to serve alcohol to passengers.

Wait! She could be transferred to the janitorial staff. House keeping, doesn't serve alcohol.

There's the accommodation.

Good grief. It is against state California and Nevada.

I feel uncomfortable playing armchair lawyer.
I'd rather wait to see how this case plays out in court.

She could be the inflatable pilot blower upper....

can the autopilots smoke anymore?

It's a good thing that I don't work (What Melmacian does?) because I believe I'll have another drink.

I don't understand why people take jobs ...where they may have difficulty with in their own beliefs... arising by waiting on a customer ... that is not the real world ... people have to work with all kinds of people ... don't believe you should have to wait to get let go ... like this came out of the blue ... not!... people know what is lawful and is not ... and its discrimination ... while working with the public... if you do not do what is required of you ...