Reasonable accommodation for Religion and belief: adding value to Article 9 ECHR and the European Union's anti-discrimination approach to employment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reasonable accommodations, a concept first introduced in the United States in the context of religious employment discrimination, is an established right for persons with disabilities under both international and EU law. The question whether to extend a similar right for reasons of religion or belief has generated much debate and controversy in a number of Member States. Some scholars have questioned the appropriateness and feasibility of strengthening religious in the European context in light of various cases involving clashing rights scenarios. Yet, in light of the existing primary legal instruments aiming to protect and include employees from increasingly diverse religious backgrounds in the European workplace, the concept of reasonable accommodations has various merits. This article discusses this added value by comparing a right to reasonable accommodations to the legal tools of human and EU non-discrimination law, and it considers the perspective offered by deep equality scholars in Canada, who argue for moving beyond accommodation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".