Reasonable accommodation for Religion and belief: adding value to Article 9 ECHR and the European Union's anti-discrimination approach to employment?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it