Skip to main content

View Diary: Target and EC, once again (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I got the same letter (none)
    I was curious also about that discrimination of the 1964 act allegation.  That sounded fishy to me; for one thing I've never heard it referenced yet in the various articles I've read about it.  Anyone know the law on this?

    No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

    by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

    •  Title VII.... (none)
      or a piece of it, anyway, from the EEOC website:

      "(j) The term ``religion'' includes all aspects of religious observance and
      practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is
      unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective
      employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the
      conduct of the employer's business."

      If you have to send away a paying customer to another establishment, I'd call that "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business."  The only way to handle this is to have another pharmacist on staff at Target who WILL dispense the EC.  

      "At my signal, unleash hell."

      by JerseyBredFilly on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 10:36:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I never knew that (none)
        I'm not sure how much the Bible has to say regarding the distribution of pharmacueticals, but I wonder how many employers would be similarly obliging if their employees brought up the specifically enumerated edict against working on the Sabbath?

        My guess? Tough shit. Business is business.

        My other car is a pair of boots.

        by FutureNow on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 10:47:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site