My Reply to a Cowardly Lawyer. Hi Alexander, and sorry for my late response.  I beg to differ with you that this is a weaker case. By Title 7 an Employer cannot refuse a religious accomodation based on his Policies as if those take precedence over Civil Rights Laws. Even the OSHA disagrees with you that this is a weaker case as you incorrectly insist in this email. Not that the OSHA is an entity that legislates laws, and even if they said the contrary it wouldn't even matter. But here are the facts for you to consider Alexander.  OSHA > In addition, if the vaccination, and/or testing for COVID-19, and/or wearing a face covering conflicts with a worker’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance, the worker may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. For more information about evaluating requests for reasonable accommodation for disability or sincerely held religious belief, employers should consult the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations, guidance, and technical assistance including at: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.501 Beats me how you arrive at the conclusion that by Federal Law a case of Religious Discrimination is weaker than another because one case is based on vaccinations and the other is based on testing or both. Religious Discrimination is just that, Religious Discrimination! A case isn't weaker than another based on what medical proceedures are being forced upon an individual against their sincerely held religious beliefs by an Employer. An Employer cannot create a policy that contradicts Federal Law such as Title 7.  This Employer simply refused an accomodation for my sincerely held religious beliefs and acted like such an accomodation did not exist. They did not claim it was burdensome to their business practice to have accomodated me, even though if they had done that, they would have to prove that it is costly for them. A blanket statement from the Employer does not work by Law. They couldn't go the route that it was costly for them to accomodate me since it wasn't. I wasn't asking the Employer that he needed to create my own office with A.C and a Shower because my religion requires that off me. Hence, they simply refused an accomodation and took adverse actions against my employment by putting me on unpaid leave in violation of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They even happened to put me on unpaid leave a month after i had charged them with the EEOC for Religious Discrimination. Coincidence?   All that is required of the Employee by Title 7 is to notify the Employer that a conflict exists between his policies and the Employee's religious beliefs. And after that the Employee needs to explain the conflict. I did just that through my Exemption letter. The Employer only refused the accomodation and demanded that i comply with his policies that violate my sincerely held religious beliefs.  The Employer made no efforts in resolving this situation.. Title 7 makes it quite clear that if the Employer has a doubt as to the sincereity of the Employee's religious beliefs, because the accomodation request does not provide enough information. The Employer is permitted to make a limited inquiry into the facts per Title 7 > https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_79076346735821610749860135 A limited inquiry is to ask the Employee to address the conflict between his or her Religious beliefs and the Employers Policies. A limited inquiry is not to ask the Employee that the Employer needs a written letter from his Rabbi, or needs to prove what Synagogue or Church the Employee goes to, ect..  The above kind of grilling is actually described by Title 7 as requesting unnecessary and corroborating evidence which in turn would have the Employer's actions challenged as retaliatory or as part of a pattern of harrasment > https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_71848579934051610749830452 If anything this chat with me serves you for the purpose of learning something if you really are invested in defending the freedoms of those who have been discrimnated because of their sincerely held religious beliefs as your website says. I personally would not hire you as my lawyer knowing fully well now that you don't know Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Have a wonderful day.