REF:Information on Reasonable Accommodation Requirements According toToledo v. -Sysco.
Thecurrent situation facing the organization cannot be sufficientlyaddressed by drawing an inference from Title VI. The 24 Muslimemployees who work for the company form instrumental stakeholders inthe manufacturing process and without them the enterprise wouldsuffer stalled production. As a company’s policy, more than 8workers cannot be on break or leave simultaneously unless lest themanufacturing process suffers a blow. Now that Ramadan is around thecorner, and the employees have requested for a break at sundown,various legal and ethical matters must be considered.
Itis clear that the organization has demonstrated accommodation forpeople with varied backgrounds, religions, and ethnicities. Were itnot so, the management would not have employed Muslims bearing inmind that they have different religious breaks. However, Title IVprohibits employers from restricting or discriminating employees onthe grounds of race, color or religious orientation. As the CEO, youare well versed with this provision, and I would not indulge in itsparticulars. The account of Toledov Noble-Sysco, Inc.that was determined in the 10th Circuit Court will help us determinethe appropriate decisions and if there is a reasonable rationale thedeny the employees a break during the Ramadan.
Noble-Sysco,Inc. had clear regulations regarding the employment of individualswho abuse drugs and those with a history of using illegal substances.During its recruitment for drivers, the management encounteredToledo, a native America who used peyote as required by his religiousaffiliation. Although he met all the requirements for the position,the management resolved that it be against its policies to hire anindividual who abused drugs. Toledo sued the company arguing that themanagement overstepped the provisions of Title VII by discriminatinghim on the basis of his religion (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc. p6).The conflict between the enterprise’s policy and the legalrequirement triggered the courts to provide a threshold for thereasonable accommodation.
First,the plaintiff must prove that the employer erred by deliberatelydiscriminating him/her on the basis of religion. When hiring,employees from different background declare interest for theavailable positions. However, the plaintiffs must exhibit that thereasons provided by the employers have to do with the aspects ofdiscrimination mentioned in Title VII (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc.p13). The plaintiff quoted the definition of religion as per thesection and argued that all the practices and beliefs assumed by adenomination should be respected.
However,the company through its lawyers demonstrated that peyote affectsone’s judgment but offered to adjust Toledo’s wok schedule if heaccepted to take a polygraph interview (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc.p14). Using the same analogy in tour organization, it is clear thatwe do not have firm work policy and we have to rely on the externalinterpretation of the law. However, the illustration that sendingmore than 8 workers on break can affect the manufacturing process canact as a robust basis for an argument against the idea. This may notamount to deliberate discrimination that employees must demonstrateas a cause for being denied reasonable accommodation.
Secondly,the plaintiff must demonstrate the prima facie case. That is, theremust be a legally rebuttable presumption. The workers must convincethe parties resolving the case that the issue at hand is notconsistent with certain legal provisions (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc.p13). In Toledov Nobel,the plaintiff quoted Title VII that defines religion and theaffiliated practices. He also successfully illustrated that peyotewas not among the illegal substances and that he only used the drugfor religious purposes (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc. p15). Should theworkers in the company decide to seek a legal intervention, they willhave to prove that the management contradicts the law.
Whendetermining the case, the 10th Circuit Court also indicated that thedefendant must show that the internal job policies that they embracedo not impact directly on religion. As an enterprise, there is needto demonstrates that it respects all religious beliefs (Toledo v.Noble-Sysco, Inc. p17). In this aspect, engaging individuals fromdiverse religions is an illustration that no discrimination isintended. In addition, the employees must indicate if any, otherinstances in which the firm acted prejudicially without a reasonableexplanation.
Thecompany’s policy can be equated to the Noble’s internalrequirement that barred drug users from being employed. The baselineof the two provisions is to avoid the enterprise from incurringlosses. Noble assumed that Toledo was more likely to cause anaccident compared to an individual who did not abuse drugs. Ourorganization can also experience loss if all the Muslims were tobreak for Ramadhan. This, according to the conclusion of the circuitcourt does not amount to direct religious discrimination.
Whileaddressing the plight of the defendants, the court indicated thatreasonable accommodation is provided for in Title VII. However, thedefinition of religion in the regulation is to make it a violationfor the employer and not to support reasonable accommodation (Toledov. Noble-Sysco, Inc. p19). Therefore, the defendant must show thepresence of undue hardships to the organization’s viability andeffect on other employees.
Althoughsome practices are religious and acceptable in different settings,they may not auger during employment. The defendant argued that theprimary role of hiring workers is to sustain the operations and anyundue interruption is highly discouraged (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc.p19). Using the similar analogy, 24 workers form more than a third ofthe employees. It is impossible to prevent the disruption of theusual operations and overworking other employees.
Reasonableaccommodation also requires employee/defendant to show preliminaryrespect for the plaintiff. This way, there is no possibility oflinking previous implications to a current situation (Toledo v.Noble-Sysco, Inc. p33). Noble argued that it had no previous casesinvolving discrimination on the basis of religion and barring Toledowas consistent with the internal policies which were fair to peoplefrom different sects.
Thecourt also ruled that a bilateral agreement between the two partiesis necessary (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc. p33). Considering theweight of sending a third of the employees for a break, the company,and the workers can reach an agreement to have some of them go forthe celebration without disrupting the production process. Such amove would demonstrate the willingness of the management to achievereasonable accommodation.
Reasonableaccommodation does not require employers to futilely resolveirreconcilable conflicts (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc. p34). Whilegiving a rationale for its ruling, the court held that there arereligious differences that cannot be accommodated in a given worksetting. In such a scenario, the definition of religion under TitleVII would act to disadvantage the employers. Toledo use of drugs wasagainst the company’s policy but its effects, according to experts,could only last for a few hours. However, the plaintiff had todemonstrate that he did not use the drug apart from religiouspurposes (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc. p41). In addition, the companycould relieve him his duties while taking the drug. The difference inthe case was reconcilable. However, it would be practicallyimpossible to send away a third of the workforce in a company thatoperates throughout the day. The available opportunities for 8individuals to be on break may make the reasonable accommodationreconcilable.
Itis also worth noting that the defendant must show evidence ofreasonable accommodation before citing undue hardships. In Toledov. Nobel,the defendant argues that the company did not have any prejudicialnotions against people of different religions. The court’s rulingcan also apply to our company to show that it does not have anydiscrimination on the basis of religion (Toledo v. Noble-Sysco, Inc.p36). By hiring 24 Muslims, it is evident that the enterprise is notbased on racial or religious profiling.
Inconclusion, Toledo v Nobel provides the company with invaluableinformation that can be used to put in place reasonableaccommodation. Although the employees may argue that it is againsttheir rights to be denied a chance to participate in a religiousfestival, the undue hardships presented by their absence can be usedas a counter argument. It is evident that the enterprise does notembrace discriminative policies and it is by sheer coincidence thatall the 24 Muslim employees need a break. Having a third of theemployees out of their position will have detrimental effects. Abilateral agreement that was recommended by the 10th circuit courtmay apply to the situation whereby the organization can send 8employees to break and avoid stalling its operations.
Toledov. Noble-Sysco, Inc., 892F.2d 1481, 1486 (10thCir. 1989).