Reference no: EM133294473

Walden, a pharmacist, informed the pharmacy manager during his job interview that he would not provide contraceptives as it was against his religious beliefs. The pharmacy manager agreed to accommodate Walden by relieving him of the duty of filling birth control prescriptions and taking orders for birth control drugs from customers or physicians. These tasks were assigned to other pharmacists even though they were reluctant to take on additional responsibilities. After starting work, Walden demanded more accommodations. He refused to transfer phone calls from patients seeking contraception, leaving them on hold indefinitely, and he walked away from people who asked for birth control drugs at the pharmacy counter without notifying other staff that those customers needed assistance. The manager then offered to relieve him of counter duty but could not relieve him from telephone duty as the high volume of calls mandated that all employees answer the telephone. Walden refused to accept his role change. As a result, he was terminated. Which of the following is most likely to be true in this case?

Walden can show a violation of Title VII's (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) religious accommodation requirement because the manager knew he would not perform any activity relating to providing contraceptives when he hired Walden.

The manager can show undue hardship in requiring other employees to assume a disproportionate share of the workload.

Walden can show a violation of Title VII's (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) religious accommodation requirement because, other than matters involving contraception, he was an exemplary employee.

The manager cannot show undue hardship because providing contraception is a small part of the services by a pharmacy.