Discrimination Claims Based on Denial of Religious Clothing Is “Low Hanging Fruit” to EEOC

Posted on September 4, 2012, by Editor in LaborSphere. 11 comments

By:  Mark D. Nelson

At a recent workshop for attorneys, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provided guidance on what employers should consider when enforcing a dress code policy on religious clothing.

A senior EEOC attorney described cases involving religious clothing and grooming policies as “low hanging fruit” for EEOC enforcement efforts.  Among the cases the EEOC is investigating are claims of religious discrimination where employees have been disciplined or otherwise disadvantaged for donning Muslim head scarves, Sikh turbans and yarmulkes.  The EEOC is also pursuing cases involving religious tattoos.  In one case, EEOC recently sued a Burger King restaurant for religious discrimination because it fired a female cashier, who is a Christian Pentecostal, for refusing to wear uniform pants.  A tenet of the Christian Pentecostal faith is that its members should not wear the clothing of the opposite sex.  The woman’s offer to wear a skirt of modest length was rejected and she was discharged.

EEOC acknowledges that employers can have and enforce a dress code, but when it comes to dealing with employees who wear clothing for religious reasons or have special grooming requirements EEOC takes the position that exceptions to the policy may be required as an accommodation.  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer is required to accommodate an employee’s religious belief unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.”  According to the EEOC attorney, an undue hardship is “anything that would cause more than a de minims cost on the employer’s operation.”

Employers should be careful about arguing that absolute enforcement of a dress code policy is a business necessity.  The EEOC will scrutinize an employer’s ban on religious clothing that the employer justifies based in its desire to convey a certain image to customers and the public.  EEOC and the courts have recognized undue hardships where the religious clothing creates a safety hazard or where the garb may be mistaken as being the employer’s “message” to customers and clients.  However, employers should tread cautiously.   In one case, a court found that a county library discriminated on the basis of religion when it fired a librarian because she refused to remove a “cross necklace.”  The court held that library patrons were unlikely to believe that the cross was part of the county’s message.

Employers should review their dress code policies to ensure they are not discriminatory and that they recognize the possibility of accommodating religious clothing, jewelry and tattoos.  In addition, managers should be educated to understand the employer’s rights and responsibilities when faced with an employee’s request to wear a religious article that may conflict with the dress code policy.

11 responses to “Discrimination Claims Based on Denial of Religious Clothing Is “Low Hanging Fruit” to EEOC”

  1. Hi everyone, it’s my first pay a visit at this website, and article is truly fruitful in favor of me, keep up posting these types of posts.

  2. DaneGLazares says:

    Somebody essentially lend a hand to create significantly
    posts I might state. That is certainly the first time I frequented your website page and thus far?
    I amazed with all the research you made to make this specific create incredible.
    Wonderful activity!

  3. WardVBasista says:

    I really like your website.. good colors & theme. Do you design this site yourself or would
    you employ someone to accomplish it for yourself?

    Plz respond as I’m seeking to create my own blog and would want to know where
    u got this from. cheers

  4. KeshiaDGlaab says:

    I really do believe every one of the ideas you’ve offered
    on the post. They can be really convincing and can certainly work.

    Nonetheless, the posts are very brief for newbies.
    May you please lengthen them a lttle bit from subsequent time?
    Thanks for the post.

  5. 353288 405699Its difficult to get knowledgeable individuals with this topic, but the truth is could be seen as do you know what youre referring to! Thanks 115840

  6. susta 500 says:

    157623 704133I completely agree with you about this matter. Nice post. Already bookmarked for future reference. 749741

  7. MarniFReulet says:

    After looking over several of the articles on your site, I seriously like your manner of writing your blog.
    I added it to my bookmark website list and will
    be checking back soon. Please check out my internet site too and inform me your emotions.

  8. I like what you guys are up also. Such smart work and reporting! Carry on the superb works guys I have incorporated you guys to my blogroll. I think it’ll improve the value of my web site :)

  9. As soon as I found this website I went on reddit to share some of the love with them.

  10. I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your blog. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Great work!

  11. RudolfAPfuhl says:

    I realize this website presents quality based articles or reviews and other data, can there be
    some other website which provides most of these things in quality?

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

EEOC More Than Doubles the Fine for Failure to Comply with Notice-Posting Requirements

By Noreen Cull

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has published a new rule in the Federal Register that will more than double the monetary...

Split Circuit Court Decisions Create Uncertainty on Class Action Waivers and likely Supreme Court Review

By Vik Jaitly

Last week the 7th Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Lewis v. Epic-Systems Corp., held that a company’s arbitration agreement, which...

The Defend Trade Secrets Act’s Seizure Provisions and What They Mean for Employers

By Valerie Dutton Kahn

It’s an employer’s worst nightmare: you discover that a former employee has stolen a company trade secret. You know you must...