![]() ![]() A general discussion of the issues raised by your correspondence appears below, and should not be construed as a legal review of any potential claim you might file. You have inquired about the legality of a mandatory flu vaccination policy implemented by your employer, _, from which you have sought to be excused as a religious accommodation. ![]() Your letter to the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been referred to me for reply. Title VII: VACCINATION POLICIES AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION This letter is intended to provide an informal discussion of the noted issue and does not constitute an official opinion of the Commission. ĮEOC Office of Legal Counsel staff members wrote the following informal discussion letter in response to an inquiry from a member of the public. For more information about the EEOC’s resources on religious discrimination, please see. The Groff opinion clarified that “showing ‘more than a de minimis cost’…does not suffice to establish undue hardship under Title VII.” Instead, the Supreme Court held that “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” “tak into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” Groff supersedes any contrary information on this webpage. This document was issued prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. Notice Concerning the Undue Hardship Standard in Title VII Religious Accommodation Cases. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |