Pa. 2016) (denying summary judgment for the employer where by plaintiff, an atheist, sought to chorus from donning an personnel ID badge with the employer’s Christian information, because whilst the employer’s concept was supposed to converse "what we imagine and how we want to be perceived by the community," a affordable jury could obtain no harm to the firm if its information was not exhibited on plaintiff’s badge) EEOC v.
Townley Eng’g & Mfg. 2003) (denying employer’s summary judgment movement on Lebanese Muslim substitute school teacher’s discrimination assert for the reason that a fair jury could conclude that preconceptions about her religion and national origin brought on university officials to misinterpret her comment that she was indignant but did not want to "blow up") Tolani v.
Upper Southampton Twp., 158 F. Supp. 1996) (holding that plaintiff meals assistance workers at business cafeteria, who have been terminated when they refused to halt greeting consumers with phrases such as "God Bless You" and "Praise the Lord," introduced a triable challenge of fact with regards to irrespective of whether they could have been accommodated with no undue hardship, because in the absence of employer proof that permitting the statements was disruptive or that it had any genuine cause to worry losing business enterprise, a realistic jury could conclude that no undue hardship was posed).
|