religous freedom in the workplace

WickedLou9 · 08-22-2007, 03:29 PM

So Something occured to me yesterday.
My co-worker , who happens to be jewish, was trying to check the dates of some upcoming jewish holidays. When he went to a website to look them up, the sites were blocked. All of them. I though that was interesting so I went to some other sites. Catholic, Muslism, Hindu, etc. All are blocked.

Now I personally don't care. I don't look at religous websites at work or at home. However it seems to me like it would be a liability to block these sites.

Religious Discrimination
UNder title VII

Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

Judging these clauses under title VII, to block access to religous information is asking for a lawsuit. As a business practice, it would seem ill advised to block such information and risk a lawsuit when the impact on your business if you allow access would be miniscule if any at all.

What do you guys think?

Rouger2 · 08-22-2007, 03:53 PM

That just seems funny. I mean funny like in weird.

Donkey® · 08-22-2007, 03:56 PM

I am sure there are more sites than the religion ones blocked. They can point to that in the face of any litigation. Besides, it's their network. They can allow whatever access they want.

Stylerod · 08-22-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am sure there are more sites than the religion ones blocked. They can point to that in the face of any litigation. Besides, it's their network. They can allow whatever access they want.

Or none at all.

I tend to agree with Donkey on this one.

WickedLou9 · 08-22-2007, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am sure there are more sites than the religion ones blocked. They can point to that in the face of any litigation. Besides, it's their network. They can allow whatever access they want.

That's not really true though. the EEOC requires employers to make "reasonable accomadations". It's federal law and employers are subject to it no matter what. I think it presents a risk because of the use of the word "reasonable". The determination there would be up to a jury. So if a person wanted to file suit they could probably atleast get the case to trial and if you can get the case infront of a jury, there is literally no telling what might happen. Why, as a business, would you take that risk?

Linzyhop · 08-22-2007, 04:42 PM

um. how about approaching the HR department and asking why these sites are blocked and go from there.

i'm thinking people are too goddamn sue-happy.

looking up non work related content on work time. I don't see that as being against the law.

so Lou, I take it LL is not blocked there then.....

JaJae · 08-22-2007, 04:43 PM

Surfing on the internet regarding unrelated things to work isn't restricting their religious expression.

Stylerod · 08-22-2007, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's not really true though. the EEOC requires employers to make "reasonable accomadations". It's federal law and employers are subject to it no matter what. I think it presents a risk because of the use of the word "reasonable". The determination there would be up to a jury. So if a person wanted to file suit they could probably atleast get the case to trial and if you can get the case infront of a jury, there is literally no telling what might happen. Why, as a business, would you take that risk?

Of course they can. I work at plenty of sites that allow their employees access only to their intranet. They have no outside access at all. I'm not sure how not having access to every website in existence could be not having "reasonable accommodations."

Donkey® · 08-22-2007, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's not really true though. the EEOC requires employers to make "reasonable accomadations". It's federal law and employers are subject to it no matter what. I think it presents a risk because of the use of the word "reasonable". The determination there would be up to a jury. So if a person wanted to file suit they could probably atleast get the case to trial and if you can get the case infront of a jury, there is literally no telling what might happen. Why, as a business, would you take that risk?

Surfing the internet isn't a right.

WickedLou9 · 08-22-2007, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Surfing the internet isn't a right.

Do you have a point? I don't remember talking about access to the internet as a right.

JaJae · 08-22-2007, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Do you have a point? I don't remember talking about access to the internet as a right.

You don't have the right to access any website at work. If they wanted to filter everything except the Cartoon Network's website they would have that right. It's their computers, resources and time. Their internet connection is not public.

Linzyhop · 08-22-2007, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Do you have a point? I don't remember talking about access to the internet as a right.

i can't believe i'm defending this......

he means you don't have the right of surfing the internet at work for non work related things. if the sites are blocked, it's not an "unlawful" thing to have them blocked as access to the internet is not a right.

WickedLou9 · 08-22-2007, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Of course they can. I work at plenty of sites that allow their employees access only to their intranet. They have no outside access at all. I'm not sure how not having access to every website in existence could be not having "reasonable accommodations."

How about a case where the business allows some web surfing. They allow access to the public internet. I can go to lowes and wal-mart and home depot and the liberty lounge... .etc. But not any sites pertaining to religion.
I'm not trying to argue for or against EEOC, I am just making an observation. EEOC exists. It requires employers to make reasonable accomadations.

The law states:

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

So since they allow access to the public internet already to a large extent, barring any offensive or illegal material, but they block access to religous information simply because it's religous in nature, isn't that a violation? Allowing access does not impose any undue burden.
If I was a business owner I sure as well wouldn't be risking a lawsuit over something as simple as this.

If you blocked all access to the internet, which you could do, then you might have a case because it's the same level of restriction for everything, not just religion.

WickedLou9 · 08-22-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

i can't believe i'm defending this......

he means you don't have the right of surfing the internet at work for non work related things. if the sites are blocked, it's not an "unlawful" thing to have them blocked as access to the internet is not a right.

I don't disagree with that. But when it comes to religion you can't discriminate. If you do allow internet access, you can't block religous sites if there is no legitamate business reason to do so. IE if you block sites about hacking and what not, illegal downloading of music, terrorists, ect. thats legit. If you have no legitmate business need to block all religous sites and you do so anyway, while at the same time allowing access to other public internet sites.. that's a violation.

Donkey® · 08-22-2007, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't disagree with that. But when it comes to religion you can't discriminate. If you do allow internet access, you can't block religous sites if there is no legitamate business reason to do so. IE if you block sites about hacking and what not, illegal downloading of music, terrorists, ect. thats legit. If you have no legitmate business need to block all religous sites and you do so anyway, while at the same time allowing access to other public internet sites.. that's a violation.

There are a million legit reasons for blocking those sites. Let's take it away from the internet and talk about objects. Let's say we're talking about virgin mary statues or voodoo statues or whatever...those are implicitly banned from work...and they are allowed to do such things. Let's go back to the internet and let's say they banned JUST those sites...it's allowed. They can easily argue that banning ALL religion isn't actual discrimination because they are not singling any ONE out.

Linzyhop · 08-22-2007, 05:10 PM

religious expression is about allowing employees to express themselves as particularly religious or not.

it's about it being completely lawful for me to wear a pentagram around my neck at work and if they have a problem with that, too bad for them.

it's about letting irish-catholic Nancy have an ash mark on her forehead on Ash Wednesday and it's being okay.

regarding the internet access, it's about causing a ruckus if only Jewish religious sites are banned, but if ALL RELIGIOUS SITES are banned, then you have no complaint as they are doing it across the board.