Patrick is employed as a correctional officer at a state prison, and his brother William is employed as a grocery store manager. Both Patrick and William seek permission from their respective employers to wear a fez at work as an act of faith on a particular holy day as part of their religious expression. Both employers deny the request, citing a uniformly applied workplace policy prohibiting employees from wearing any type of head covering. The prisons policy is based on security concerns, supported by evidence, that head coverings may be used to conceal drugs, weapons, or other contraband, and may spark internal violence among prisoners. The grocery stores policy is based on a stated desire that all employees wear uniform clothing so that they can be readily identified by customers. If both brothers file EEOC charges challenging the denials of their accommodation requests, the EEOC likely will not find reasonable cause in Patricks case because the prisons denial of his request was based on legitimate, evidence-based security considerations posed by the particular religious garb sought to be worn. The EEOC likely will find cause in Williams case because there is no indication it would pose an undue hardship for the grocery store to modify its policy with respect to his request

Your task is to answer the foll Question:

1. Assume that you are an EEOC Administrative Judge, who handles cases similar to these. Pass your judgement

2. provide your Justification for the verdict

Length of the assignment - 1 1/2 pages, 12 font size, & 1.5 space