Question

Arafa Habib is employed in the shipping and receiving department of The Long and the Short of It (“L&S”). He begins work before sunrise. At sunrise, during a break and at noon during lunch, he prays to Allah. One morning a huge shipment of suits arrives, and Arafa is told to work through his break. He refuses because of his prayer ritual. His supervisor informs Mark Short, co-president of L&S. Mark tells Arafa in no uncertain terms that his job comes before his religious practices. Furthermore, Mark stipulates that engaging in religious prayer at the workplace is disruptive. From now on, Arafa must discontinue it. Arafa explains that he is Muslim and that his faith requires prayer at certain times. Mark is unrelenting. Arafa resigns immediately and files a claim with the EEOC. Arafa states that his accommodation request was reasonable and that L&S discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs. Mark consults with Susan North, L&S’s attorney. Susan divides Arafa’s request for accommodation into two parts: First, his religious belief requires him to pray at sunrise, during break, and at noon and, second, he wishes to fulfill his religious practice by praying on the premises.

QUESTIONS:  

1.      Analyze both parts of Arafa’s request for accommodation. What argument might Short make that the accommodation requests were not reasonable?

2.      Do you believe that the accommodation requests were reasonable? Why or why not?

3.      If the accommodation requests were reasonable, what steps could Short have taken to provide the necessary accommodations on religious grounds to Arafa?

4.      What policies should the organization put in place to avoid potential liability in situations such as this?

Answer 1

1. The first part of the request is to allow the person to pray during work hourss, while second, to do it at workplace itself. The first one is unreasonable because it conincides with important hour of the work and no alternative arrangement can be made. Further, it is a daily schedule, hence no temporary arrangement for replacment during this time can be made. Prayer at theworkplace might distract many workers, which might lead to losing their concentration and possibility of an accident can't be ruled out. Hence in the interest of the company, it is unreasonable.

2.They were not reasonable because it needs 2 mandatory breaks daily, irrespective of the work conditions and the person's requirement at the work. This will make the person permanently unavailable during this time, which is a serious handicap with the person. Prayer at the workplac might also offend, distract or disturb many at the work and might lead to accidents, hence unreasonable.

3. If they were reasonable such as to let him wear the skull cap for specific periods, it could have been allowed by Short. Even the prayer could have been allowed, if the replacement was readily available without disturbing the work, and the workplace was secluded enough so as not to distract oher workers while praying. In these cases, Short would have made substitution for those periods and designated a dedicated prayer place to arfa if possible.

4.Organisation should try as much as possible to accommodate such cases through substitution or making suitable arrangements. However, it must know the religious practices of certain groups while engaging them for work, and make sure that none of their religious obligations is affecting and causing the company an undue hardship. If it believes so, it might not hire them for roles where no such substitutions can be made, but at the same time it must be in legal position to prove that hardship in a court of law.