|
G. Thomas Harper, Editor
Harper Gerlach PL
Vol. 20, No. 6
August 2008
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
But doesn't Aladdin wear a turban? Sikh sues Disney over dress code
The United States is home to more than 2,000 different religious faiths and denominations. As a result, religious discrimination in the workplace is a growing problem. Over the last 10 years, religious discrimination complaints filed by employees
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rose 67 percent. During the same period, disability, sex, and race discrimination complaints actually decreased.
It's a small, small world
Sukhbir Channa, a 24-year-old former University of South Florida student, recently sued Walt Disney World, claiming its dress code is discriminatory. Channa is a Sikh who conforms to his religious requirements of wearing a turban, beard, and long
hair. According to court papers, he was hired in October 2005 as a seasonal college musician, a job that involved both "parade" and "atmospheric" performances. Initially, he claims, he was permitted to wear a toy soldier hat over his turban in the
parade performances. He was also permitted to wear a red turban in the atmospheric performances (other musicians wore red berets). He says he was ultimately removed from the atmospheric performances, however, because he didn't have the "Disney look."
Channa claims he complained to the HR Department but was told he wasn't hired for atmospheric per- formances so no corrective action was taken. He was terminated in early 2006, allegedly for not having the "Disney look." He says he was denied a job
for the same reason in October 2006 when other college musicians were hired.
Channa filed suit under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), requesting at least $1 million in damages and seeking to bar Disney from discriminating against Sikhs. The case is in the early stages of litigation, and Disney hasn't yet issued a
response. We'll keep you posted on this interesting case involving "the happiest place on earth."
What the law says
Religious discrimination is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the FCRA. That prohibition covers all aspects of employment, including hiring, discharge, discipline, promotions, demotions, compensation, leave policies, and
layoffs. In a nutshell, federal and New York laws (1) prohibit you from discriminating against employees based on religion and (2) require you to make a "reasonable accommodation" for an employee's religious practices and beliefs.
Compliance with the first part of the law is fairly simple. You can't refuse to hire or promote someone because of his religion, nor can you hire or promote someone based solely on his religion. In other words, job-related decisions must be made for
nondiscriminatory reasons.
Compliance with the second part is more complicated. Under that prong of the law, you must work with employees to make it possible for them to practice their religious beliefs ― within reason. That might mean relaxing a dress code so an
employee can wear religious garments. But problems can arise when employees request an accommodation, and you have to determine whether and how to accommodate their requests.
Recent litigation over reasonable accommodation
Although most dress and appearance code lawsuits have centered on gender discrimination claims, religious accommodation claims are rapidly making headlines. Employees have objected to dress and appearance codes on the grounds that their employer is
requiring them to act in a way that violates their religious beliefs and practices.
Here are some other recent cases involving dress code accommodations:
- Tattoos. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against a restaurant based on its termination of an employee because of religious inscriptions on his wrists that allegedly violated the employer's dress code prohibiting employees from having visible
tattoos.
- Head coverings. A Sikh police officer won the right to wear a turban while directing traffic after complaining to the New York City Human Rights Commission.
- Beards. Two Newark, New Jersey, police officers won a court battle for
permission to wear short beards.
'Undue hardship' exception
Employers are permitted to draw a line when considering whether to grant a religious accommodation. You aren't required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on your legitimate
business interests. You can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices would require more than ordinary administrative costs, diminish efficiency in other jobs, infringe on other employees' job rights or benefits, impair
workplace safety, cause coworkers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or conflict with another law or regulation.
Courts have held that the following accommodation requests place an undue hardship on an employer:
- Facial piercings. A company had no duty to accommodate a sales employee's religious beliefs by exempting her from its dress code prohibiting all facial jewelry other than earrings. The court stated that the cashier's physical appearance
would adversely affect the employer's public image and the company had a legitimate business interest in cultivating a professional image.
- Religious buttons. A federal appellate court found that an employer reasonably accommodated a Roman
Catholic employee's religious belief when it told her to cover a button she wore because of a vow she had taken. The button included a picture of a developing fetus and an antiabortion message. Her coworkers' reaction to the button caused substantial
disruption in the workplace. The court found that permitting the employee to continue to wear the button after the employer unsuccessfully attempted to calm her coworkers would allow her to impose her beliefs on others as she chose.
Those
decisions offer encouragement and instruction if you're concerned about how your employees appear to customers and coworkers. They also suggest, however, that employers faced with dress code violations should proceed carefully. Although dress codes
or grooming requirements grounded in safety, efficiency, discipline, or business concerns may be upheld, you should review your policies to ensure they're reasonably related to your employees' jobs and applied equally to everyone in the workplace.
Commonsense tips
Here are some ideas for ensuring that your policy complies with the law:
- Base your policy on business-related reasons. Explain your reasons in your policy so employees understand the rationale behind your restrictions. Common business-related reasons include maintaining a certain public image, promoting a
productive work environment, or complying with health and safety standards.
- Require employees to have an appropriate, well-groomed appearance. Even casual dress policies should specify whether any type of clothing is inappropriate (sweatsuits,
shorts, jeans) and explain any special requirements for employees who deal with the public.
- Communicate your policy to employees. Use employee handbooks or memos to alert employees to a new policy, explain any revisions, and lay out the
penalties for noncompliance. In addition, make job candidates aware of your dress code.
- Apply dress codes uniformly to all employees. That way, you can prevent claims that your policy adversely affects women or minorities. You may have to make
exceptions if they're required by law, however.
- Make reasonable accommodations when the situation requires an exception. Be prepared to deal with requests to accommodate religious practices by allowing employees to wear head coverings or facial
hair, for example.
- Discipline employees consistently for dress code violations. When disciplining violators, point out why their attire doesn't comply with your dress code, and let them know what they can do to comply.
Copyright 2008 M. Lee Smith Publishers LLC
FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT LAW LETTER does not attempt to offer solutions to individual problems but rather to provide information about current developments in Florida employment law. Questions about individual problems should be addressed to the employment
law attorney of your choice. The Florida Bar does designate attorneys as specialists in labor and employment law.
|
