This. We can be certain that whatever is said or done during the meal will be considered as part of the hiring decision.
The employer should not be allowed to ask personal questions by changing the interview setting.

No it is not. It is a case of what is written in the law...not what necessarily makes sense. I have seen people time and again get themselves into trouble because they beleived they were somehow protected because their actions make sense. Their folly is they think common sense governs when it is actually the law or contract they signed.

Doesn't say much for our legal system.

I thought Tame was Norwegian for some reason.

Illegal?
Probably.

Thoughts?
Better line is "say no". (maybe best)

Their thought process:
???
Aha, she could sue if she doesn't get the job. Oh no...
Assuming they are smart.

If they don't give her the job, sue ainec.
Win-win sitch.

I agree. And If they remembered to ask, they already know that.

I have a friend who makes the sign of the cross and bows his head in prayer for about 2 seconds before every meal. He doesn't ask permission, he just does it. This doesn't bother me in the least when we are at a restaurant.

However, the very fact this interviewer felt it necessary to ask if it was okay signifies the problem. If he feels it's his religious duty to pray before a meal, then he should just go ahead and fulfill what he feels is his personal obligation without bringing others into it. But once he asks others if it's okay, he takes it outside the realm of personal belief. It can easily be construed that he is either fishing for a reaction or worse, coercing her to go along with a religious ritual in order to get hired.

I want to change my reply. Now that I think about it more, I don't know if saying no is best if you want to have a job. But it's good if you don't want to work there and sue.

If there are multiple religious people at the table, then the blessing is viewed as a communal event. It's sometimes awkward in a different way if nobody volunteers. I've sat down for a meal with other Christians, and there's an awkward silence while everyone waits for someone to pray. By volunteering to pray, the interviewer potentially avoided the even more awkward situation of the interviewee either digging into his meal while everyone else is waiting for prayer or being completely lost as to why everyone is just sitting there and not eating.

Almost anything can be construed in a negative way. But if this is the culture of the people who are working there and it really, really bothers the interviewee, it's good for the interviewee to know about it before he or she accepts the job.

Also, there are lots of interviews in which the interviewee is put in an awkward or otherwise surprising environment so that the interviewers can see how he or she responds to different circumstances.

I think it would be an interesting legal issue, especially if it were a fortune 500 company within the states. Aaron W is right in that they could probably ask her if it was okay that they practice communism. Or if she minded that they vote republican. But I'm not sure it's okay to ask her stance on abortion etc., that has direct religious implications. And to me at least, it's obvious that they should not (can not?) make hiring decisions based on a candidate's reaction to a religious ritual.

This is not quite true. They cannot make a hiring decision based on the candidate's religion or participation/lack of it. The relevant line is in a link from Stu:

This extends to a "potential employee" in the hiring process.

Someone else blessing a meal is not the same as being forced to participate in a religious activity. The person not participating can sit there quietly for 15 seconds or whatever and it's not coercive. Asking the interviewee to pray for the meal is very different.

But the candidate's reaction *can* be taken into consideration. For example, if the candidate says "F*** this s***" and disrupts the prayer, this is no different from the same outburst at any other time during the interview. And I think that if some very negative reaction happens, that the employer SHOULD take it into consideration.

Most of this stuff is common sense.

This is the crux of it for me: Saying no to what? A lot of you seem to be framing this as the interviewee may have felt compelled to do something. Why should we think he or she had do do anything besides be quiet for ten seconds while someone else prayed?

If she had asked that person to pray, or asked that person their beliefs, yea, out of line... but it doesn't seem like anything like that happened.

Seriously? When was the last time you were at a business meal with a new client/employee and this awkward situation came up? I travel extensively for my job and routinely dine with clients/employees and not once has this ever came up. Again, I know exactly 1 person religious enough to pray before meals and he does so quietly in a personal way. Next time you're in a restaurant, take a look around and notice how many people pray before they dig into their appetizers or meals. I'm guessing it will be 0 and after 100 times it may still be 0. To say he was just trying to avoid an awkward situation seems a very weak defense.



As in if you don't pray to Yahweh, you won't fit in here?

Well, this is exactly the point. It's common to put an interviewee in situations in order to judge whether their reaction is acceptable or fits a related job requirement. However, religious acceptance (or belief) is not supposed to be a job requirement and judging a candidate based on his or her religious affiliation, whether or not they pray, when they pray, and what god they pray to, is supposed to be off the table for job qualifications. The interviewer seems to be trying to determine whether she'd fit in based on her religion. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's a no-no.

I want to add that this really isn't an actual question. The actual communication is much closer to the announcement of "I would like to bless the meal."

It's very similar to asking someone "How are you doing?" as a greeting in passing, as opposed to saying it to engage someone in an actual conversation about how they're doing.

She was put in the position of being compelled to answer the interviewer's question of whether or not it would bother her if he prayed. That's enough. If he just prayed, fine. But when he asks her opinion on how she feels about prayer, he oversteps his bounds. Because it's a religious issue, it's none of his business if she minds or not.

You have a point here, however, I doubt if there was any intent on the part of the interviewer. It sounds to me like she may have overstepped her bounds by being a bit overcautious about the issue.

I am. I think the focus is also quite different in our countries. People here seem focused on grief caused to the candidate, personally I would be concerned about the grief caused to the company.

It is quite a shame to lose what could be good candidates because you alienate them over lunch, or give them informal (unstated) reasons for demanding more pay etc.

The hiring process can be quite delicate... often the recruiter has power of the candidate, but when you have good candidates the table can actually be turned... and you don't want to give them a reason to turn that table. It is definitely an area where you thread rather delicately.

Ofcourse, it is all dependant on the pool you recruit from. If there is tons of equally qualified applicants it isn't that big of a deal.

First, the strength of an argument is not tied to the frequency with which it is used.

Second, you are essentially stating that you don't know that many religious people. So your position is grounded in ignorance. People pray for their meals, and the fact that you don't think they do doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Your best chance to "observe" this happening is to go to lunch on a Sunday afternoon at a family restaurant located near a church.

It's more like "This is who we are, and we have to get along if you're going to work here." It's not any different from any other office culture. For example, some offices have a lot of strong personalities, and if you're going to work there you need to know that you'll have to deal with them. This doesn't mean that you're going to need to be a strong personality to work there, but you do have to deal with the fact that you're in an office with strong personalities.

Only if the non-participation of prayer is actually used in the hiring decision does it matter. If the person can't get along with 15 seconds of silence before eating (in a group meal setting), then that person can be denied employment.

This is exactly the same in the other direction. If an employer will not allow an employee 15 seconds to pray (a reasonable religious accommodation), then the employee can sue the employer for religious discrimination.

It's just a matter of whether employers and employees religious beliefs are being respected (within reasonable limits).

Why should anyone be forced to take part in any religious activity? How do you feel about the HR person saying "let's all sit here in silence for 15 seconds to praise Allah"?

Is the employer actually being forced to praise Allah?

Participation doesn't mean "being around" when it happens. It means actually doing the activity.

If an employee was forced to bow down towards Mecca, that would be forcing to participate. If if meant that work around you stops while others bow to Mecca, that's fine. But you can't go around and disrupt the prayer to get someone to sign a form for you during that time.

I am a theist, but from the description in the OP this crosses the line imo. The meal is clearly a business function and the backdrop of an interview with employment at stake clearly creates an environment of implied pressure to participate. Requesting that everyone pause and wait while a prayer is recited is at least seeking tacit participation. I have 25+ years of corporate experience ending as a VP and corporate officer. If I had witnessed that I would have let it go at the table but privately told the person praying to keep their observance personal in the future and I would have privately assured the interviewee that it would not be repeated and had no connection to the interview process whatsoever.

Not much of a lawsuit opportunity though. There was no actual indication that the interview result was contingent on the candidate's reaction. The question appears to have been addressed to the table and not an individual which weakens any claim of harassment.

It is a weak transgresson imo. Does not prohibit a nuisance suit, but the downside of being labeled a troublemaker outways any financial opportunity, again imo.

She doesn't have to say grace, so who cares? They acted respectfully and asked permission assuming it could potentially be offensive or awkward. If I didn't want to bite the bullet and suck up for the position, my response would be "I don't mind you saying grace as long as you don't mind me not participating". I doubt there would be any problems with this especially since they asked you permission in the first place; they're cognizant of boundaries and respectful of them.

I talked about this with my friend, who is going to be a lawyer soon. He's a 3rd year law student.
He told me this is a good case and that the company would have to prove they weren't discriminating against her.

Nice 3-month bump.

Regarding a subject anyone cares about:
Why was Stu Pidasso banned?

I've been gone awhile.

I think it's a great bump.

I question the sample size. What about Stu Pidasso?