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 …
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.
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.