![]() The employee asserted in writing that he believed the vaccine would do his body more harm than good. Court of Appeals ruled that a hospital worker’s objection to a flu vaccine mandate was medical, not religious, in nature. ![]() The appellate court held that an employee’s veganism was insufficiently comprehensive to be characterized as anything more than a personal philosophy. First, a religion “addresses fundamental and ultimate questions” addressing “deep and imponderable matters.” Second, a religion is a comprehensive belief system rather than “an isolated teaching.” Third, a religion often has such “formal and external signs” as services or holidays. In a 2002 ruling, the California Court of Appeal identified three attributes religions tend to have. The EEOC reaffirms that “objections to COVID-19 vaccination that are based on social, political, or personal preferences, or on nonreligious concerns about the possible effects of the vaccine do not qualify as ‘religious beliefs’ under Title VII.” Court rulings provide guidance in distinguishing between religious and secular beliefs. An employee who fails to respond risks losing a later claim that the employer improperly denied an accommodation. ![]() ![]() An employer may ask the employee to explain how their religious beliefs conflict with the vaccine mandate. The EEOC says an employer generally “should assume that a request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief,” but need not accept such an assertion at face value. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |