Reasonable Accommodation confusion
<p>I was looking at the following case study, and was not sure if it fell under the category of "Reasonable Accommodation" which is what I was thinking of how it could be approached:</p>

<p>"An amusement park company has recently opened a ride/attraction that requires guests to put on headsets to fully experience the ride. However, many people who wear religious headgear such as Sikhs with turbans, Muslims with Hijabs, Jews with their Kippas, etc... are claiming that this ride excludes them unfairly as they are being told by the management that the only way they can go on the ride is by removing their religiously mandated headgear. Does the company have a duty to accommodate such guests by making a compromise of some sort? I.e., partially partaking in the ride, being given free passes, etc..." </p>

<p>Thanks. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the only way they can go on the ride is by removing their religiously mandated headgear. Does the company have a duty to accommodate such guests by making a compromise of some sort?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The company <a href="http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/en/droits-de-la-personne/responsabilites-employeurs/Pages/accommodement.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">has a duty</a> to look into what it can do, and if it can't do anything — articulate why.</p>

<p>On the face of it, headsets are required "to fully experience the ride". That is, if a religious guest continues to wear their headgear instead of the headset, nothing will be affected but just their own ride experience. It is hard to see how this would meet the "undue hardship" criteria for the company to refuse the accommodation request.</p>

<p>So, instead of claiming that the ride excludes them unfairly, the religious guests can make a request for reasonable accommodation and, if not satisfied with the response, <a href="http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/en/plainte/Pages/default.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">file a complaint</a>.</p>

canada religion employer