Onlinehumidor.com

[quote author=MCDavis link=topic=36529.msg155218#msg155218 date=1452110069]
Directly from the Dept. of Labor:

[i][b]Breaks & Meal Periods
Federal law does not require lunch or coffee breaks. However, when employers do offer short breaks (usually lasting about 5 to 20 minutes), federal law considers the breaks as compensable work hours that would be included in the sum of hours worked during the work week and considered in determining if overtime was worked. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished.

Bona fide meal periods (typically lasting at least 30 minutes), serve a different purpose than coffee or snack breaks and, thus, are not work time and are not compensable.[/b][/i]

Breaks are not required. If you get one, be glad you do. And no, religious beliefs are absolutely not a reason for multiple breaks during the day regardless of what religion it is.
[/quote]
From the same source:

Religious Accommodation
Title VII requires federal agencies, upon notice of a request, to reasonably accommodate employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs, practices or observances conflict with work requirements, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship.

What is a religious accommodation?
A religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow an employee or applicant to practice his or her religion. The need for religious accommodation may arise where an individual's religious beliefs, observances or practices conflict with a specific task or requirement of the position or an application process. Accommodation requests often relate to work schedules, dress and grooming, or religious expression in the workplace. If it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation.

What is an undue hardship?
An agency may justify a refusal to accommodate an individual's religious beliefs or practices if the agency can demonstrate that the accommodation would cause an undue hardship. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Undue hardship also may be shown if the request for an accommodation violates the terms of a collective bargaining agreement or job rights established through a seniority system. Undue hardship based on cost requires that the agency show more than a de minimis (minimal impact upon the agency's business) cost to the agency. The hardship upon the agency must be genuine and cannot be merely speculative.

How does a religious accommodation process work?
In requesting an accommodation, an employee or applicant is not required to use "magic words" (such as indicating that he or she is seeking "an accommodation"). However, an employee or applicant must make the agency aware of the need for an accommodation based on a conflict between the individual's religious belief or practice and their work duties or the agency's application process. The request for an accommodation may trigger an interactive process, particularly if the employer reasonably needs more information, between the responsible management official and the individual making the request to discuss the request and assess available options.[b] Examples of religious accommodations may include: scheduling changes (arrivals, departures, floating/optional holidays, flexible work breaks and any other scheduling changes); voluntary shift substitutions and/or swaps; job reassignments, such as changes of position tasks and lateral transfers; and modifications to workplace practices, policies and procedures.[/b] An accommodation may also involve designating an unused or private location in the workplace where a religious observance or practice can occur if it is disrupting other workers. The need for accommodations may also apply to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

[quote author=ckay link=topic=36529.msg155219#msg155219 date=1452112578]
From the same source:

Religious Accommodation
Title VII requires federal agencies, upon notice of a request, to reasonably accommodate employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs, practices or observances conflict with work requirements, [b]unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship[/b].
[/quote]

To me, more and/or longer breaks than the rest of the employees get is an undue hardship on the employer. To me, again, this ends the conversation.

As an employer of 30+ years, our employees were always treated fair and equally, and always liked working for us. Favoritism, for any reason, ultimately creates undue hardship on the employer.

[quote author=MCDavis link=topic=36529.msg155220#msg155220 date=1452113041]
To me, more and/or longer breaks than the rest of the employees get is an undue hardship on the employer. To me, again, this ends the conversation.


[/quote]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that not one Federal agency would agree with your interpretation of that passage, meaning of a break or undue hardship.

[quote author=kydsid link=topic=36529.msg155221#msg155221 date=1452113471]
I can tell you with 100% certainty that not one Federal agency would agree with your interpretation of that passage, meaning of a break or undue hardship.
[/quote]

So you must be the Director of All Federal Agencies..... in addition of course to being wrong.

[quote author=burnem link=topic=36529.msg155224#msg155224 date=1452114709]
So you must be the Director of All Federal Agencies..... in addition of course to being wrong.
[/quote]

I came to edit because you know what I did put some hyperbole in my statement that no Fed agency would agree, maybe their is one. The ones I have interacted with enough to know for sure all would disagree.

[quote author=kydsid link=topic=36529.msg155221#msg155221 date=1452113471]
I can tell you with 100% certainty that not one Federal agency would agree with your interpretation of that passage, meaning of a break or undue hardship.
[/quote]
I can tell you with 100% certainty that every single potential hire was told our work schedule prior to employment. Never had 1 person disagree with it or question it. No question I would handle hiring the exact same way, providing I owned the company like I did then.

I understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong. I simply don't agree with you.

[quote author=MCDavis link=topic=36529.msg155227#msg155227 date=1452115355]
I can tell you with 100% certainty that every single potential hire was told our work schedule prior to employment. Never had 1 person disagree with it or question it. No question I would handle hiring the exact same way, providing I owned the company like I did then.

I understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong. I simply don't agree with you.
[/quote]

To be clear Im not saying you are wrong either. A lot of reasonable accomidation doesnt apply to you or othrr private employers. Just trying to point out, badly I admit, that their is a lot of different opinion on what is reasonable, what is undue, and what s break is from employer to employer. The rules arent all that helpful sometimes. Heck I woukdnt be suprised if this dismissal ended up in court.

[quote author=kydsid link=topic=36529.msg155229#msg155229 date=1452116194]
To be clear Im not saying you are wrong either. A lot of reasonable accomidation doesnt apply to you or othrr private employers. Just trying to point out, badly I admit, that their is a lot of different opinion on what is reasonable, what is undue, and what s break is from employer to employer. The rules arent all that helpful sometimes. Heck I woukdnt be suprised if this dismissal ended up in court.
[/quote]

:bigup:

Fair enough, we're on the same page. And yeah, I'm aware that there are advantages to employing less than 50 in a private business. Doesn't mean we can treat people badly, but does mean we don't get involved in some of the government headaches.

Federal Internal Auditor here.....  not saying accommodations can't or shouldn't occur.  I can say when you start favoring one group over another, there's going to be fallout.  Flexible federal schedules allow for two 15-minute breaks per 8 hours worked, but I'm sure if multiple breaks were requested then that employee could come in early or leave later to fill out a 7.5 hour workday and enjoy all the prayer breaks desired.  However, in a factory setting this can easily cause undue hardship on others or disrupt production efficiency which goes against what I read.

Burnen, well of course. reasonable accommodation has never meant getting paid for time not worked afaik. I nevet meant to imply the extra time off from other workers would be paid.