Good for you, Jeff C. I'm just sorry your fellow Americans put you in a position of having to do that. My own experience is 180 degrees out of phase with that. (BTW, I cannot think of a single religious or medical exemption that was ever denied; at least, that's my experience. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have to be in p…
Good for you, Jeff C. I'm just sorry your fellow Americans put you in a position of having to do that. My own experience is 180 degrees out of phase with that. (BTW, I cannot think of a single religious or medical exemption that was ever denied; at least, that's my experience. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have to be in play in order for a company to invoke "undue hardship" as its reason for denial...)
When I tell you that at the very beginning of this, which I knew was an "operation" immediately, I could tell that it was going to go very badly. As my company ramped up to send us all home, I attended meetings about how we would operate from home. (I was a senior member of the HR team, reporting to the head of HR and the Chief of Staff) During these run-up meetings, I looked around at these three women and knew my days were numbered. It was truly like being in a parallel universe. Like being outside myself watching and listening to what was being said, what the company was going to do, and thinking I have just entered an insane asylum...I was gone by the end of the year.
Thanks for fighting the good fight while you were there.
What these folks fail to realize is that the CRA is crystal clear. Employers must provide a reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. Period, end of story. Sanctimony or good intentions (in their mind) don't invalidate the law as many companies are now learning the hard way.
But the government, media, and medical establishment all ganged up to pressure these companies into doing their dirty work. Many of these HR types, filled with an inflated sense of sanctimony, were happy to play along. I needed to remind our HR exactly what the law said and that I would sue them if they didn't follow it.
Companies cannot make you prove your religious beliefs are consistent or logical. They cannot require a letter from a religious leader (the spiritual equivalent of a doctor's note). All of that stuff is illegal under the CRA and subsequent case law. My company requested a note from a religious leader and I told them to go pound sand (politely) while pointing out there was no basis for it under the law or scripture.
Plus I'm in a good position where they needed me more than I needed them, and frankly I was ready for a fight on this issue. Ultimately, they were more afraid of losing me, and being sued by me afterwards, than they were of the government. Accommodation granted.
I was lucky (or determined) enough to do as Jeff C. did and find the legal means to defend my ground, including the EEOC handbook. I never really sensed a push back from my HR, and I read the CEO's letter mandating the vax's as almost a veiled willingness to accommodate all requests.
"I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have to be in play in order for a company to invoke "undue hardship" as its reason for denial...)"
We'd been accommodating the situation with remote work and masks and such for more than a year at that point. Exactly how could continuing those accommodations be seen as any hardship, much less an undue one?
My thought now is that every CEO in the country (and possibly the entire world) now knows that the vaccines harm and kill working age people just from the 125% plus increase in the supplemental life insurance fees. Zero chance they didn't notice that increase and not ask why... unless they already knew why.
James, your second paragraph...𝑬𝒙𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒍𝒚! That's what I was driving at. Now...now that we're headed back into our offices after having worked remotely and been forced to mask, now suddenly we're unable to figure out how to accommodate someone who declines an experimental medical intervention..? What utter bull.
Yet the cowards all across "the fruited plain" abused their employees and broke the law by refusing to accommodate. I'm very happy you got yours, which was your 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩.
Good for you, Jeff C. I'm just sorry your fellow Americans put you in a position of having to do that. My own experience is 180 degrees out of phase with that. (BTW, I cannot think of a single religious or medical exemption that was ever denied; at least, that's my experience. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have to be in play in order for a company to invoke "undue hardship" as its reason for denial...)
When I tell you that at the very beginning of this, which I knew was an "operation" immediately, I could tell that it was going to go very badly. As my company ramped up to send us all home, I attended meetings about how we would operate from home. (I was a senior member of the HR team, reporting to the head of HR and the Chief of Staff) During these run-up meetings, I looked around at these three women and knew my days were numbered. It was truly like being in a parallel universe. Like being outside myself watching and listening to what was being said, what the company was going to do, and thinking I have just entered an insane asylum...I was gone by the end of the year.
Thanks for fighting the good fight while you were there.
What these folks fail to realize is that the CRA is crystal clear. Employers must provide a reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. Period, end of story. Sanctimony or good intentions (in their mind) don't invalidate the law as many companies are now learning the hard way.
But the government, media, and medical establishment all ganged up to pressure these companies into doing their dirty work. Many of these HR types, filled with an inflated sense of sanctimony, were happy to play along. I needed to remind our HR exactly what the law said and that I would sue them if they didn't follow it.
Companies cannot make you prove your religious beliefs are consistent or logical. They cannot require a letter from a religious leader (the spiritual equivalent of a doctor's note). All of that stuff is illegal under the CRA and subsequent case law. My company requested a note from a religious leader and I told them to go pound sand (politely) while pointing out there was no basis for it under the law or scripture.
Plus I'm in a good position where they needed me more than I needed them, and frankly I was ready for a fight on this issue. Ultimately, they were more afraid of losing me, and being sued by me afterwards, than they were of the government. Accommodation granted.
I was lucky (or determined) enough to do as Jeff C. did and find the legal means to defend my ground, including the EEOC handbook. I never really sensed a push back from my HR, and I read the CEO's letter mandating the vax's as almost a veiled willingness to accommodate all requests.
"I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have to be in play in order for a company to invoke "undue hardship" as its reason for denial...)"
We'd been accommodating the situation with remote work and masks and such for more than a year at that point. Exactly how could continuing those accommodations be seen as any hardship, much less an undue one?
My thought now is that every CEO in the country (and possibly the entire world) now knows that the vaccines harm and kill working age people just from the 125% plus increase in the supplemental life insurance fees. Zero chance they didn't notice that increase and not ask why... unless they already knew why.
James, your second paragraph...𝑬𝒙𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒍𝒚! That's what I was driving at. Now...now that we're headed back into our offices after having worked remotely and been forced to mask, now suddenly we're unable to figure out how to accommodate someone who declines an experimental medical intervention..? What utter bull.
Yet the cowards all across "the fruited plain" abused their employees and broke the law by refusing to accommodate. I'm very happy you got yours, which was your 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩.