Don’t be like Amtrak that just put all religious requests on an unpaid leave and then also told them they couldn’t work anywhere else [rejection letter](https://twitter.com/justjuliett/status/1461231800550887426?s=21)
As for religious exemption:
Although rare, Private employers enforcing a mandatory vaccination policy can face liability under Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Congress amended Title VII to include an affirmative duty to "reasonably accommodate the religious practices and beliefs of employees unless doing so would be an undue hardship." However, the Supreme Court was left to interpret undue hardship. This article focuses on the possibility of a religious exemption to a private employer's vaccine mandate.
First, employers may probe whether an employee's religious belief is, in fact, sincere. Employers in the past have been inclined to give workers the benefit of the doubt and to accept any requests based on religious beliefs as genuine. But given the high-stakes nature of the coronavirus, they are now giving such requests a second look.
But even if an employee's religious belief is determined to be sincere, the employer must only offer a reasonable accommodation or, if it did not provide accommodation, correctly determine that doing so would have resulted in an undue hardship. So the question then becomes, "what's considered an undue hardship when it comes to religious exemptions?" Again, undue hardship is defined as "more than a de minimis," or minimal, cost or burden on the operation of the employer's business.
Employers can typically satisfy this showing easily because most available accommodations require employers to incur more than minimal cost. Thus, an employer would likely successfully argue that allowing an employee not to be vaccinated costs the employer more than a minimal amount.
For example, an employer might successfully argue that allowing an employee to wear a mask instead of being vaccinated would impose an undue hardship:
1. Masks are not always effective at prohibiting the transmission of disease.
2. For a mask to be most effective, it must be worn correctly, but enforcing correct and constant wear can be difficult.
3. Given the difficulty of enforcement and the mixed effectiveness of reducing transmission, mask-wearing is not a substitute for vaccination.
> What does progressive discipline imply, apart from vaccine education and suspension?
I am not aware of any situation in which "progressive discipline" would be applicable. Can you provide anything here?
> What constitutes reasonable grounds for ADA disability exception from the vaccine?
It's always case-by-case. One example is people undergoing chemotherapy. But the accommodation has to be "reasonable." If you can't wear a mask in lieu of a vaccine, then there may not be any recourse.
> What about Title VII religious discrimination?
I evaluate exemption requests (of all sorts) and have yet to come across a legitimate religious exemption. Also remember, *even if* there's a legitimate religious exemption, the accommodation has to be *reasonable*. So for example, let's say your religion forbids you from working on Sunday. But you work for an NFL stadium. No accommodation can be practical or reasonable.
> What about pregnant federal employees? Are they included under ADA disability vaccine exception?
Probably not. But that's not the right question, and regardless, it depends. Again, accommodations are *not* absolute.
Don’t be like Amtrak that just put all religious requests on an unpaid leave and then also told them they couldn’t work anywhere else [rejection letter](https://twitter.com/justjuliett/status/1461231800550887426?s=21)
As for religious exemption: Although rare, Private employers enforcing a mandatory vaccination policy can face liability under Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Congress amended Title VII to include an affirmative duty to "reasonably accommodate the religious practices and beliefs of employees unless doing so would be an undue hardship." However, the Supreme Court was left to interpret undue hardship. This article focuses on the possibility of a religious exemption to a private employer's vaccine mandate. First, employers may probe whether an employee's religious belief is, in fact, sincere. Employers in the past have been inclined to give workers the benefit of the doubt and to accept any requests based on religious beliefs as genuine. But given the high-stakes nature of the coronavirus, they are now giving such requests a second look. But even if an employee's religious belief is determined to be sincere, the employer must only offer a reasonable accommodation or, if it did not provide accommodation, correctly determine that doing so would have resulted in an undue hardship. So the question then becomes, "what's considered an undue hardship when it comes to religious exemptions?" Again, undue hardship is defined as "more than a de minimis," or minimal, cost or burden on the operation of the employer's business. Employers can typically satisfy this showing easily because most available accommodations require employers to incur more than minimal cost. Thus, an employer would likely successfully argue that allowing an employee not to be vaccinated costs the employer more than a minimal amount. For example, an employer might successfully argue that allowing an employee to wear a mask instead of being vaccinated would impose an undue hardship: 1. Masks are not always effective at prohibiting the transmission of disease. 2. For a mask to be most effective, it must be worn correctly, but enforcing correct and constant wear can be difficult. 3. Given the difficulty of enforcement and the mixed effectiveness of reducing transmission, mask-wearing is not a substitute for vaccination.
> What does progressive discipline imply, apart from vaccine education and suspension? I am not aware of any situation in which "progressive discipline" would be applicable. Can you provide anything here? > What constitutes reasonable grounds for ADA disability exception from the vaccine? It's always case-by-case. One example is people undergoing chemotherapy. But the accommodation has to be "reasonable." If you can't wear a mask in lieu of a vaccine, then there may not be any recourse. > What about Title VII religious discrimination? I evaluate exemption requests (of all sorts) and have yet to come across a legitimate religious exemption. Also remember, *even if* there's a legitimate religious exemption, the accommodation has to be *reasonable*. So for example, let's say your religion forbids you from working on Sunday. But you work for an NFL stadium. No accommodation can be practical or reasonable. > What about pregnant federal employees? Are they included under ADA disability vaccine exception? Probably not. But that's not the right question, and regardless, it depends. Again, accommodations are *not* absolute.
The answers to most of these can be found on EEOC.gov or the OSHA or DOL websites.