Courts use a completely different - and lower - standard to require employers to accommodate religion; compared to accommodating disabilities. For disabilities, employers must provide reasonable accommodations unless there is undue hardship on the employer. Courts have set this "undue hardship" bar very high for employers, to the point where the employer must show that the hardship is unduly costly or disruptive. For religious accommodations, the "undue hardship" standard for employers is much lower, where the employer can prove an undue hardship simply by showing a minimal expense or operational problem to accommodate religion. Do you think it's fair to have different legal standards of "undue hardship," depending on whether the employer is accommodating a disability or religion?