Please enter your email address to access this article.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against anyone because of his or her religion, among other things, in recruiting, firing, promotions, benefits, training and job duties. However, many organizations find themselves in hot water when its policies are unclear. For example, a major medical group had a dispute when it denied a Muslim doctor, who was interviewing for a job, his right to wear a hijab.
Federal law states that organizations with at least 15 employees are required to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs, observances and practices of job candidates and employees when requested, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the business. But exactly what is an undue hardship? What are the legal precedents on what’s permissible and what’s not?
This 591-word article provides details on the EEOC’s updated Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination and when an employer can claim undue hardship when accommodating an employee’s religious practices. Summaries on several legal cases on religious attire are also provided and their outcomes given. General conclusions can be drawn, but readers should keep in mind that courts have traditionally ruled on a case-by-case basis.
Readers will learn:
- Why public reaction to an employee’s religious dress is not generally considered undue hardship
- How rulings have issued financial settlements as well as a requirement for companies to provide custom-made uniforms
- How impairing workplace safety can be grounds for religious-accommodation denial
- Why refusing to allow a Muslim woman employee on the police department does not violate Title VII
Cases exemplified include Riback v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, Bhatia v. Chevron USA and Webb v. Philadelphia.
Please enter your email address to access this article.
