About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


33 U. Kan. L. Rev. 583 (1984-1985)
Employer's Duty of Reasonable Accommodation under Title VII - Pinsker v. Joint District No. 28J

handle is hein.journals/ukalr33 and id is 585 raw text is: EMPLOYER'S DUTY OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION UNDER TITLE VII- Pinsker v. Joint District No. 28J* One of the basic liberties granted by the United States Constitution is the right to freely excercise one's religion. This freedom has a limit, however, since it cannot infringe on the rights or duties of others. When an individual's reli- gious practices interfere with his employer's policies, courts must strike a bal- ance between the employee's right to excercise a sincere religious belief and the employer's practical obligations to his business and to other employees. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,' employers must accommodate the varying religious needs of their employees; the statute thus permits an em- ployee to sometimes compel others to adapt their conduct to his religious prac- tices.2 Recent courts, however, have limited the scope of this power by stressing the need for employer-employee compromises, and employers who have tried to cooperate with their employees in the accommodation of their religious beliefs are likely to receive more sympathy from the courts.3 A recent Tenth Circuit case, Pinsker v. Joint District No. 28J, continues to limit the extent to which an employer must accommodate an employee's reli- gious practices, and in so doing appears to set a dangerous precedent. Pinsker held that if an employer's existing leave policy represents a reasonable accom- modation to the religious needs of all employees, the employer need not take further steps to accommodate the practices of an individual employee who is dissatisfied with that policy. The Pinsker court's holding considerably weakens an employer's obligation to work toward accomodation of the individual reli- gious needs of his employees. This Note will examine how the court reached its conclusion and will comment on the effect Pinsker might have on future rea- sonable accommodation cases. I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION DOCTRINE A. Legislative History Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discrim- inate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, condi- tions, or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, reli- gion, sex, or national origin.'5 In 1966, the Equal Employment Opportunity * Colleen Cacy 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (1982). Note, Accommodation of an Employee's Religious Practices Under Title VII, 1976 U. ILL. L. F. 867, 872 (1976). ' See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Mann, 561 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1039 (1978). - 735 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1984), petition for reh'g filed, No. 83-1240 (10th Cir. filed June 13, 1984). 8 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1982).