I am a big fan of the First Amendment. I have argued against the Smithsonian’s decision to remove a controversial video showing ants crawling over a crucifix. I have argued on behalf of Muslims who wanted to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. I have even defended the rights of members of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at military funerals in the name of a God who hates. But I have finally found a religious liberty case I cannot get behind….
Given the facts and the law as I understand them, however, I believe that Khan and the Justice Department are overreaching here. Nineteen days is a long time to leave schoolchildren (who also have rights) without a teacher, particularly at the end of a semester. And while it is troubling to hear that the district did not even negotiate with Khan ”” a charge to which district officials refused to respond ”” it is hard to see how this request could have been reasonably accommodated.
For a short article, this is well done. The thing about this case which baffles me is why the EEOC and now the Justice Department agree with the claimant that it had to be done during this particular year – [i]her first year of employment[/i] – rather than after she had worked a number of years (and when it might, incidentally, not fall during the instructional period of the school year). 19 days is a very long time!
All the better to establish the Islam holds a privileged position and they better not be trifled with. Special privileges for special people.
Prothero’s position is balanced and well-reasoned. Both sides acting reasonably with a view toward some sort of eventual accommodation of the woman’s religious beliefs should have been able to work something out. I think the answer to No. 1’s inquiry is that the school board apparently made no effort to either engage with the woman or to find another approach (at least I think I have discerned that from Prothero’s piece and other accounts). DOJ apparently believes that the flat rejection of the request violates the employer’s obligation of reasonable accommodation. So it is not the ultimate denial of the request that has the United States in court, it is a refusal to make an effort to find a solution. They appear to be taking the position that an employer can say, “No, but . . .” but cannot say “Hell no.” That may be fine as a principle worth defending, but in the hurly burly of litigation, particularly given the higher federal courts’ historic sympathy for employers in these situations, it may be a tough one for the teacher and the federal government to win. As Prothero states, we have done fairly well in our secular lives in accommodating Jewish and Christian traditions, but the verdict’s out on how we manage the increasing presence of Muslims, Hindus, and other religious backgrounds among us.
I have known Hindu Americans who save their vacations for several years, with their employers’ consent, to permit extended visits to India. A Muslim who contemplates a Hajj could look at the changing Hajj calendar, talk to the employer well in advance, and plan a pilgrimage for a time agreeable to both. Asking for nineteen days off in the first year of employment just isn’t reasonable, and Prothero’s review of legal precedents indicates courts are likely to find this.
Shall she stop the system for her religious benefit when schools are forbidden to teach Christmas carols – or even to sing them? Is there such a thing a special treatment for “in” groups? Larry
Unless the lady plans to live on an off the grid farm, she will be forced to bend her religious beliefs to the needs of Society. Society also has some rights here.
Physicians are expected to come in on their Sabbath, their religious beliefs to the contrary. Those who refuse are prosecuted for abandonment.
Christian scientists have “healers”. A faithful Christian Scientist does not have the right to sue to enter medical school and to force established hospitals to defer to their views on the nature of disease.
The Amish do not engage in lawsuits, insisting that every superhighway have a special “horse and buggy” lane to accomodate their religious beliefs. They simply avoid superhighways. If a job needs computer skills (like being a cashier at a bank), I have never heard of any Amish suing on the basis of religious discrimination, insisting that a special pen and paper and abacus be permitted instead.
If the lady in question cannot adapt her religious beliefs to those in American society, nobody is preventing her from setting up her own Islamic school complete with prayer five times daily in lieu of recess, and annual field trip to Mecca. It is entirely up to her.
No. 5, I would think the analogous situation would be if the public schools engaged in teaching Muslim verses or hymns (I realize that music is forbidden in some elements of the Islamic world). I don’t think that is what is at issue here. The closer analogy would be allowing a Christian teacher leave to go on a pilgrimage to Lourdes or something along those lines. I would also think that there is nothing in American society incompatible with Muslims making a pilgrimage to Mecca (re No. 6). The issue here is one of timing and balancing the legitimate interests of the school system and the teacher’s religious obligations.