![]() |
Not official use. |
Would allowing him to grow a beard impose an "undue hardship?" The Third Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the employer:
It is telling that no Air Mask Technician has been called to engage in fire suppression for several decades . . . The City can only theorize a vanishingly small risk that Smith will be called in to engage in the sort of firefighting activities for which an SCBA is required. There are no other personnel—whether administrators or active firefighters—who are seeking an accommodation relating to the SCBAs, so the risk that the City will be unable to respond to an emergency safely is all the more unlikely.
Thus the plaintiff may proceed on his Title VII religious accommodation claim (and also a constitutional Free Exercise Clause claim).
No comments:
Post a Comment