Here is an interesting case.

http://www.theemploymentlawyers.com/Articles/Religion.htm

"This court rules that Catholic dogma does not require worshippers to abstain from working on Holy Days. The only requirement the church absolutely imposes upon its followers is to attend mass. Plaintiffs were not denied the opportunity to attend mass, and therefore, plaintiffs cannot establish that they were forced to forgo a practice required by their religion."

On the basis of that case, I would strongly argue that the Muslim woman cannot show that the Haj needed to be performed 'that' year, and thus is not a binding requirement or obligation of her faith.

Remember Haj= "once in a lifetime"

But they need to be relevant, Boaz

>>my background reading for the opinion I am offering here has been quite extensive and includes court summaries of other cases.<<

Writing stuff that you haven't properly researched is your standard operating procedure, we know.

But every so often, I will call you on it.

>>He requested 3 days extra off from the 3 allowed for specifically 'religious' holidays, and was denied.<<

You have assumed that the Hajj request was made under the same allowance, haven't you? I suspect that if this had been the case, the US Department of Justice would not become involved, since the conditions appear to be quite specific.

>>On the basis of that case, I would strongly argue that the Muslim woman cannot show that the Haj needed to be performed 'that' year, and thus is not a binding requirement or obligation of her faith.<<

Another assumption on your part. This time, that she offered the "Hajj imperative" as the reason for her unpaid leave request.

So, once again it would appear that you have invented your own scenario, in order to suggest that the rules are being bent.

The facts as we know them are these:

i) she asked for three weeks unpaid leave, ii) they declined to grant it because "it wasn't work related", iii) she resigned, for her own reasons and iv) the US Department of Justice took up the case on her behalf, to get her re-instated and v) to point out to the employer that personal prejudices against someone's religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to bully them.

Ok, so I invented v)

The rest, though, are reported as fact.

Facts trump your fictions, every time.

I agree Pericles, but I happen to think you have rather slanted facts :)

I'll keep trying to dig up the specific case...it would help put this one to bed on your side.

FOUND IT! ook....good.

Philbrook vs Ansonia Board of Education.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/757/757.F2d.476.84-7548.397.html

Appellant's legal battle seeking accommodation of his religious practices began in 1973 when he filed a complaint against the school board and the union with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The CHRO found probable cause to believe that the school board's refusal to allow personal business leave to be used for religious observance constituted religious discrimination, and attempted conciliation.

Welcome to the evil world of "Human Rights" commissions.

Now let's see how (after numerous excursions through various courts) the final decision is made by the Supreme court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/479/60.html

//Under the approach articulated by the Court of Appeals, however, the employee is given every incentive to hold out for the most beneficial accommodation, despite the fact that an employer offers a reasonable resolution of the conflict.//

Then: (re the above)

//This approach, we think, conflicts with both the language of the statute and the views that led to its enactment.//

The Decision:

"We accordingly hold that an employer has met its obligation under 701(j) when it demonstrates that it has offered a reasonable accommodation to the employee." 6 [479 U.S. 60, 70]

HooooRAY for some common sense.

It seems to me, that in the case of the Haj....the 'reasonable accomodation' has been met in that it is not valid to claim 'she must' when the faith itself only obliges her to 'when she can'.

It boils down to what is 'reasonable'...and in the light of the haj not being annual or obligatory for a particular year... the board was quite 'reasonable' in my view. (and it would appear..the view of the Supreme court)

I find your attempts to justify your flights of fancy endlessly educational, Boaz.

Once again, you have managed to find an example that proves my point, rather than yours.

>>Philbrook vs Ansonia Board of Education.<<

This case exclusively concerns itself with paid leave.

The one that you described in your OP exclusively concerns itself with unpaid leave, which is outside the terms of the case that you cite.

It went like this:

She asked for leave without pay.

The reason why she wanted leave without pay should have been irrelevant.

Her employers made it relevant by saying "it isn't work-related".

A clear case of a vindictive and petty employer, finding an excuse not to allow an employee three weeks unpaid leave. One has to presume, because they didn't like the idea that she intended to undertake her Hajj.

[Deleted for flaming.]