Muslim Flight Attendant Refuses to Serve Alcohol- Do Republicans support her?

[Ms. Toad]

233. Reasonable accommodations are always individual assessments.

and they are based on legal analysis, not knee-jerk reactions by people who do not understand the law.

In this case, airlines (more broadly) already accommodate flight attendants who can't serve alcohol because they are underage. This particular airline accommodated it for this flight attendant for 3 months and only rescinded the accommodation when a bigoted complaint was filed.

Those factors weigh against it being an unreasonable accommodation. That isn't to say that the airline couldn't convince a court the accommodation was unreasonable because of their size and the number of puddle-jumping flights they run, but they will have an uphill battle.

As to a cab company refusing to hire anyone but Muslims, that is blatantly illegal - and anyone filing a complaint would win in a heartbeat. There are very few jobs (and cab driving is not one of them) where it is permissible to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Since people carrying alcohol isn't a protected class, presumably (absent laws specific to cab drivers*), a company or an independent cab driver could refuse to transport someone who has alcohol in their possession (or who has blue eyes, or is wearing fur, as other examples). If the cab driver worked for a company that did not have such a policy - it would probably be pretty easy to establish that accepting fares is an essential job function. Depending on the dispatch system & the number of cabs, it might or might not be a reasonable accommodation. If it could be handled without inconveniencing the customer (by not dispatching that particular cab driver in the first place - or by that driver forfeiting his/her place in the queue), there is at least an argument that the accommodation is reasonable. Probably not a winning one.

Because individuals with disabilities ARE a protected class, neither an independent cab driver or a company could refuse to transport the person and their dog. That makes it an even harder argument for the cab driver, since accommodating the service animal would need to be seamless - or the company risks a discrimination claim by the owner of the service animal. That makes it harder for there to be any reasonable accommodation for the driver's religion since failure to accommodate the service animal has legal consequences the company owner would likely have to bear.

* My legal experience does not extend to the specific regulations governing cab drivers - so if there are are additional requirements that prohibit cab companies from refusing service to people who are not part of a protected class, the analysis would follow the service animal analysis.

Do I support the law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion (or lack thereof)? Absolutely.