It's this sort of thing that keeps Mennonites out of the civil service.

I'm with Ben. Order a size larger pants and a belt and no curves will be seen. Or perhaps don't get a job in the public eye that requires a uniform if you cannot wear said uniform. As well, seems to me like the boss was looking for a reason to can her. Skirt looks the same just longer, oh well.. Not like she is refusing to wear a hardhat or a reflective vest on a construction site.

<i>...perhaps don't get a job in the public eye that requires a uniform if you cannot wear said uniform...</i><p>Yeah, 'cause mid-calf skirts are so frigging offensive. How about we remember this is the state who is the employer and the day the state can decide someone can or cannot do their job because a skirt is three inches too long is the day the zomboid mornons win and the terrorists may as well take over. <p>This employer supervisor deserves a show trial.

Perhaps the state must allow Muslim women who join the infantry the ability to wear ankle covering kevlar combat skirts as well then?

If its no big deal, why is she making a big deal out of it? I was against turbans being allowed as part of the RCMP uniform and I'm against this. It is the religious belief that is the obstacle here preventing the employee from following standardized job requirements.

Ahh - the "freedom for all but according to my rules" principle.

It seems your taking an expansionist approach to the phrase about a sphere of personal autonomy: "The right to security of the person covers the right to personal autonomy, involving control over one's bodily integrity and freedom from state imposed psychological and emotional stress." If all we are talking about is three inches of cloth, I'm not sure where bodily integrity and the imposition of state imposed psychological stress fits in.

As to accommodation, the employee has a responsibility to participate and cooperate in requesting an accommodation and determining the reasonable way to implement the accommodation: "Employee is responsible for making their accommodation needs known, by requesting accommodation measures, and suggesting, if possible, the type of accommodation that would be appropriate,
provide sufficient information to the employer or service provider to determine appropriate accommodation options, participating in the process with the employer or service provider, in good faith efforts, to find appropriate accommodation options."

While undue hardship involves consideration of health, safety and cost in the organization doing the accommodation. I would suspect further justification in a security setting like and airport would be involved.

Finally, although it is pointless to argue settled Human Rights jurisprudence and policy, I don't agree that religious belief is fundamental human attribute that requires protection and trumps other competing factors. But that's just my personal view.

My wife's away. I've obviously got time to argue about this foolishness.

OK, you are alone so I can pounce.<ul><li>"<i>...I don't agree that religious belief is fundamental human attribute that requires protection...</i><p>That becomes problematic, then, as others do including the courts. If you are saying I don't believe in what the fundamental law says that is, of course, fine and what I think you are doing. What I find more interesting is that you can, after all the law, strongly hold an understanding divergent from it. Not because law is better or worse but because it simply is.</li><p><li>And on "freedom from state imposed psychological and emotional stress", the content of that section 7 freedom would be filled in, in part, by the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 15 so I would assume that the freedom has a subjective aspect correlating to discrimination such that if you honestly think showing the upper calf makes you a whore in the eyes of God, well, what is the big deal? Even though I do not believe that belief, isn't it the right of all of us to have our own reasonable and honestly held belief systems protected? </li></ul>There. Govern yourself accordingly if you are minding the wee one.

The wee one is with the mother in Calgary.

On the first bullet: Having not read all the law on the subject, I am immune from the force of its reasoning and therefore much freer to hold opinions dviergent from it. That being said, I doubt there is much in the way of judicial consideration about what are actually the fundamental attributes of a human that merit human rights protection. How did the familiar list of protected attribute come into being? Are there others? Are they all of the same quality? I could make an argument that having a disability such as blindness or deafness is a far different thing than choosing to believe some irrational (religious) belief and are deserving of more protection.

On your second point, I honestly and earnestly ask the question: What do you think the test for state imposed psychological and emotional stress looks like? Wouldn't it be mainly based on "reasonableness"?

I dunno, Al. What if you instead had a woman wearing a Crucifix openly? One who cited the Bible about the necessity of being an open and 'non-luke warm Christian'? Would the same apply? Would teh same reasoning still apply and be valid? I think there's court cases across the Dominion that say otherwise.

I'm just arguing for a single legal form of treatment for people's silliness.

No, I don't). I don't see how that's germain, either. I know down here in the States teachers cannot wear religious stuff, unless it somehow comes under the heading of 'culture' at which time it becomes sacrosanct. But not if you're of some non-minority group or religion. I do konw a Brit lady found herself in major trouble last year for wearing a Crucifix to work for an airline. Seems to me that the common law has a double standard, observation of some religions is more equal than others.

the law seems to. So we have this hodge podge of rules about how we allow employees to observe religious dictates. Yes, the boss is a tool. So? BOss' have been tools since the inception of 'political correctness' in what they allow employees say and do. Welcome to the modern world(Will write 1000x, 'Don't snark the host.')

Oh, ok. I do not add one British airways incident and one school board's rule as a war on Christianity. We have state funded Catholic school boards here in Ontario so I don't think the cross is going out of style any time soon. So the double standard is that a person of faith who has a certain standard of modesty that no one really has a problem with that is barred by the state while others while others have state sponsorship to promote their faith. That to me is nuts - especially as we are only talking about the hem length of a skirt.

Who said anything about a crusade to expunge Christianity from the public square? I just noted that in instances like this, where people for religious reasons are given a bit of lattitude, the standard is not clear or firm.

A Sikh can wear a ceremonial dagger, but a woman can't wear a Crucifix? Yeah, that makes a whole lotta sense, Al. A Hindu can wear their little red braclet and charms, but other people can't? Sure, that's completely eqiutable. If you ban one group from observances of Faith it seems you should do it to all. (And, hey, I come from the States where something like Fed funded parochial schools would cause a lynching.)
\
Nor do I see why that you have fed funded parochial schools really amounts to anything in this discussion, Al. Seems more like you got a bone to pick with your own contrymen on it than me. So go pick bones. (Or yell at Ann Coulter, whichever makes yer baldy heed feel better.). Are you trying to say that simply because the state does something wrong in favo(u)r of one group it is still justified in wronging the same group because of the pro-action? So if I scratch your back I'm allowed to kick you in the nads? That's what I'm seeing here with what you put forward about 'state sponsorship' and the rights pertaining to individuals to follow religiuos doctrine.

But, if the standard in the Dominions is that, hey, this is the required uniform and you can't deviate from it to abide by religious dictates in one situation then it seems only fair that the same be for another. No mods of the uniform. And it isn't gov't doing it. It's the employer. If you can't live with the rules they have maybe one should either a) look for a more liberal about unifrom employer or b) not be in the hospitality sector(and it's no more discriminatory than us personality deficient or challenged not being hired in said sector. We can't or won't do what the require of us so why should they have to hire, or continue to employ, us?).

If the policy is no alterations for religion it should hold for everyone, Al. NOt just for people who don't seem to offend or for alterations that nobody complains about. What ever happened to holding people equally before the law(or rules), Al? Or is that an out-moded concept now-a-days? (Okay, 1000x more.)

I am not picking a bone with you on anything. This is a discussion of issue - I don't expect you are a source of any of these initiatives...are you??? If you are, 1000 pushups. Now.<p>The point is if someone is allowed to do something, then others of a similar class are clearly to be treated by the state equally. As this is a Canadian case, your introduction of US principles is maybe not going to get that but that is your business. So, just so you know, the RCMP some years ago had to let Sihks wear their traditional headwear due to a ruling based on equality rights and, you know what, the world did not fall apart. [It never does.] The employer in this case is subject to human rights legislation that similarly protects the cultural and religious rights of people - like people who it would not be dreamed of suspending from work without pay for wearing a crucifix.<p>What I am hoping you are picking up is that the policy of the country is that state employee uniforms have to accommodate the wearer's faith. It is not to make everyone look the same for commercial purposes.