IV. Religious Conflicts

Learning Objective Three: Explain religious conflicts under Title VII and give examples.

Workplace conflicts between an employees religious beliefs at odds with workplace policies is probably the most frequent type of religious discrimination case. For instance, the employer may have a no-beard policy, but the employees religion forbids shaving his beard.

Sometimes the conflict comes not with the employees religion, but with that of the employer.

If an employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it offered a reasonable accommodation to the employee or that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without incurring undue hardship.

As more and more of employees come into the workplace who are not of the traditional religions with which an employer may be more familiar, and these employees have an expectation of being accommodated in accordance with the law, employers will need to learn to effectively handle the religious conflicts that arise.

Lecture Notes: Discuss with students the various religious conflicts provided in this section, from wearing dreadlocks to a woman wearing pants; from a restaurant server not singing the birthday song, to an employee not answering the phone with a happy holidays greeting; from the vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of a marketing promotion scheme to the employee whose religion forbids him to shave, even in the face of a clean-shaven workplace policy. See if they can think of any more conflicts, and ask what they would do in these situations. Pay close attention to their answers as to form more though than substance: that is, regardless of the conflict or whether they know the tenets of the religion involved, what steps they can take to find out what they need to know and evaluate whether it can be accommodated, so that they do not run afoul of the law.

The key is for an employer to make sure that the basis for the conflict is a religious one and then to try to work out an accommodation. Once the employer is aware of the conflict, the employer must attempt a good-faith accommodation of the religious conflict and the employee must assist in the attempted accommodation. If none can be worked out and the employer has tried everything available that does not present an undue hardship, then the employer has fulfilled his or her Title VII obligation and there is no liability, even if the employees religious conflict cannot be accommodated. Because of the diversity of religious conflicts that are possible, there is no single set of rules that can be provided that will cover all religious conflicts.

In Goldman v. Weinberger, for example, the issue of conflict arose in the context of the military where a rabbis wearing of the Jewish yarmulke head covering under his military uniform violated military dress regulations. The regulation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case is mentioned for several reasons. First, it presents a conflict between religious practice (wearing a yarmulke) and work (being a member of the military). It also allows students to understand the U.S. Supreme Courts position on matters military and how they interact with Title VII and other protective legislation. As Title VII is being discussed, students frequently ask how the military can have the rules it has, which seem to be at odds with Title VII.

The answer is that the Court tends to view the military as being in a class all its own for most purposes. The militarys need for good order, cohesion, instant and unquestioning obedience, esprit de corps, morale, and other such interests usually results in the Court deferring to the military when there are conflicts.

The right to be free of religious discrimination is not absolute. There are limitations to the right where there may be overriding considerations such as the military cohesion in Goldman or the undue hardship on the employer under Title VII.

Not every conflict involving religion will necessarily be a religious conflict recognized by the law. Think about the description of the Walmart employee who was terminated for violating Walmarts Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy by screaming at the lesbian employee. She was not terminated because of her religious beliefs, as she argued, but instead for violating Walmarts policy by harassing an employee. The decision to terminate was based on the employees conduct, not on her religious beliefs.

After reading and digesting the material in Religious Discrimination, please provide one (1) to two (2) questions that remain or arose while going over the material in that chapter.