HomeAboutContact | ...loading...

29 CFR §1605.3 | SELECTION PRACTICES

(a) Scheduling of tests or other selection procedures. When a test or other selection procedure is scheduled at a time when an employee or prospective employee cannot attend because of his or her religious practices, the user of the test should be aware that the principles enunciated in these guidelines apply and that it has an obligation to accommodate such employee or prospective employee unless undue hardship would result.

(b) Inquiries which determine an applicant's availability to work during an employer's scheduled working hours.
(1) The duty to accommodate pertains to prospective employees as well as current employees. Consequently, an employer may not permit an applicant's need for a religious accommodation to affect in any way its decision whether to hire the applicant unless it can demonstrate that it cannot reasonably accommodate the applicant's religious practices without undue hardship.

(2) As a result of the oral and written testimony submitted at the Commission's Hearings on Religious Discrimination, discussions with representatives of organizations interested in the issue of religious discrimination, and the comments received from the public on these Guidelines as proposed, the Commission has concluded that the use of pre-selection inquiries which determine an applicant's availability has an exclusionary effect on the employment opportunities of persons with certain religious practices. The use of such inquiries will, therefore, be considered to violate title VII unless the employer can show that it:
(i) Did not have an exclusionary effect on its employees or prospective employees needing an accommodation for the same religious practices; or

(ii) Was otherwise justified by business necessity.
Employers who believe they have a legitimate interest in knowing the availability of their applicants prior to selection must consider procedures which would serve this interest and which would have a lesser exclusionary effect on persons whose religious practices need accommodation. An example of such a procedure is for the employer to state the normal work hours for the job and, after making it clear to the applicant that he or she is not required to indicate the need for any absences for religious practices during the scheduled work hours, ask the applicant whether he or she is otherwise available to work those hours. Then, after a position is offered, but before the applicant is hired, the employer can inquire into the need for a religious accommodation and determine, according to the principles of these Guidelines, whether an accommodation is possible. This type of inquiry would provide an employer with information concerning the availability of most of its applicants, while deferring until after a position is offered the identification of the usually small number of applicants who require an accommodation.
(3) The Commission will infer that the need for an accommodation discriminatorily influenced a decision to reject an applicant when:
(i) prior to an offer of employment the employer makes an inquiry into an applicant's availability without having a business necessity justification; and

(ii) after the employer has determined the applicant's need for an accommodation, the employer rejects a qualified applicant. The burden is then on the employer to demonstrate that factors other than the need for an accommodation were the reason for rejecting the qualified applicant, or that a reasonable accommodation without undue hardship was not possible.
Congratulations! You're now booked up on Code of Federal Regulations (which are pertinent to civil rights litigation)!

You might need to reference them during your pursuit of justice.

For instance, you might need to understand certain regulations to recover from the damages that lawbreaking judges/lawyers/agencies have inflicted upon you [and/or the public] (see this example of a Florida judge who outright committed perjury).

As always, please get the justice you deserve.

Sincerely,



www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
logoAdobe Download
iconXML Citations
YouTubeVideo A Judge's Perjury
logoCases A Judge's Perjury
logoGraph Analysis: Pro Se & Race Status
logoHTML How-To Guides
logoHandbook Handbooks
logoHTML Info: Motion vs Pleading
logoHTML Lists: Attorneys
logoReports Reporter Series
logoRules Rules
logoSamples Sample Court Documents
logoSurvey Survey
logoTable Tables: Courthouses (US)
logoTemplates Templates
Pages That You
Might Also Like
All-in-One Title 29 29 CFR 1605
Regulations - FL
Court Rules - USFLMD Fed. R. Civ. P. Fed. R. Civ. P. Fed. R. Evid.
Pertinent Laws (Federal)
US Constitution
Civil Rights Attorneys - FL
Buffa v Singletary, 652 So. 2d 885 (1DCA 1995) Gadsden v Lewis, 348 So. 2d 343 (1DCA 1977) Kearse v DHRS, 474 So. 2d 819 (1DCA 1985)
add a comment
IconQuiz IconLike UniApp
1.0
iconFullScreenBgnIticonFullScreenEndIt
Icon-Email-WBIcon-Email-WG Icon-Youtube-WBIcon-Youtube-WG Icon-Share-WBIcon-Share-WG