5 thoughts on “The REAL HR Show: A Whole Lotta People Getting Holy (Religious Exemptions)

  1. They use fetal cell lines in them, so people who are against abortion (on religious grounds) cannot partake in good conscience. It’s OK to be anti-abortion. Oh, and the cells are from elective abortions. So funny to some people.

    1. Actually, the vaccines do not contain fetal cells. That rumor has been widely-debunked. The Catholic Church — among others — has declared that being vaccinated does not violate the Church’s anti-abortion, anti-contraception, stance.

    2. The vaccines are MRnA they do not contain fetal cells…. I’m not sure where that theory came from.

      Here is some information from a credible source (https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/messenger-rna)

      “Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made. During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid.:

  2. EXCELLENT Podcast! Of all the legal webinars and podcasts I have heard, this one is by far the most realistic and helpful.

  3. Having a form and having management thank the employee then refer everything to HR are great ideas. Legally, the burden for an employee to show that they have a “sincerely-held religious belief” is very low. Their position doesn’t have to be espoused by any recognized religion. To the contrary, all that is required as that it be held with the same fervor as religious beliefs traditionally are. There are legal decisions in religious accommodation cases finding, for example, that the beliefs of the Onionheads — who run around wearing colanders on their heads — can qualify as sincerely-held religious beliefs. The issue of whether or not the employee’s position qualifies as religious is not the hill you want to die on. The real crux in religious accommodation cases is whether or not a nominally-articulated religious belief can be accommodated, without causing undue hardship to the employer. In the religious accommodation sphere, “undue hardship” is defined as anything more than a de minimus cost or inconvenience, an exceedingly low legal threshold (much lower than in disability accommodation cases). If, following the interactive process, an accommodation that only occasions a de minimus hardship cannot be found — regardless of the “sincerity” of the claimed belief — the employer has fulfilled their duty under Title VII, and no accommodation is necessary. I note that the vaccine mandates, thus far, have been incredibly successful. The vast majority of those who — previously — claimed the inability to be vaccinated, due to medical or religious reasons, have, nevertheless, somehow, managed to overcome those barriers and complied.

Comments are closed.