Either way, whether religion is involved or not, discriminating or not, from what I've seen so far, Yelp needs to pay.
Just so that it can be a lesson to others.
Several people my wife works with are deliberately scheduled around their weekly religious obligations.
Perhaps an actual lawyer on HN can chime in, or post a helpful link.
Employers must, on request, make reasonable accommodation (one which does not impose an “undue hardship”) for religious practices. [0]
Nothing in the narrative provided (which comes from the lawsuit filed by the fired manager) seems to indicate that an advance request for an accommodation was made.
An employer can fire you for failing to perform job duties due to a religious observance for which you did not ask for an accommodation, as I understand it.
[0] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_...
If your religion says you can't handle pork and you take a job at a pig slaughterhouse, the employer should not be obliged to pay you to do nothing.
Yelp isn't really a startup by any reasonable standard.
By your argument you could tell a pregnant woman “sorry, you have to work, all the men have to keep working.”
Regardless of what you personally believe that’s likely a losing case in a lawsuit.
Together with religion there isn't possible to have rule or requirement which isn't against someone political or religious view. Anti-discimination laws must therefor limit themselves, often down specific scenarios or looking at the reason why a requirement exist rather than the requirement itself.
For example, if I hold the political view that working more than four days a week is inhumane, that carries just as much as protected class status than if I believed Sundays are declared by god as the day of worship and rest. If a company fired someone for not showing up on the fifth day, they have just as much right to do so as fire someone for not showing up on Sunday if that is what the employment contract says. Local employment laws naturally applies.
It's true that in some jurisdictions (including CA), political affiliation/activity is a protected class, meaning employers cannot discriminate against or refuse to hire people because of these affiliations/activities.
But that doesn't necessarily extend to political beliefs. Otherwise, employees could just say that any of their beliefs (I should have a 2-hr lunch; employers should provide free breakfast/lunch/dinner) are political in nature and then get whatever they want. Unlike religion, which may not be the basis for discrimination and must be reasonably accommodated, I'm not sure that any of the political stuff has to be accommodated. I think employers just can't discriminate on this basis.
I could be wrong here, and am happy to be educated. But I'm a former lawyer and have followed this type of things somewhat during the last decade.
It's literally part of the Griggs v. Duke Power Co decision from which the disparate impact standard arose. The 1991 Civil Rights Act puts on defendants the burden of proving "that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity".