When work and religion collide

Jim EvansBecause religious beliefs are protected and there is a more diverse workforce, religious accommodation issues have increased.

This article was written by originally published in the July 19, 2009 Zanesville TimesRecorder and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

By Jim Evans

This is not your father’s workplace. A snapshot of today’s workforce looks dramatically different than it did a generation ago. Our workplaces are comprised of young people, senior citizens, and every age in between. Women work effectively in jobs that were traditionally held by men. Persons with disabilities contribute in ways never dreamed of before, and people of various races work side-by-side. Not only that, our workforce encompasses vastly different religious faiths, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Islamic, Hindus, Buddhists, and a myriad of many other traditional and non-traditional religions. It’s not unusual for people of deep religious faith to work along side atheists and agnostics.

Our forefathers founded this country on the premise of freedom of religion, but it took the Civil Rights Act to make religious discrimination illegal in the workplace. Prior to 1964, many employers freely exercised their prerogative to not hire anyone whose religion vastly differed from their own. Today, things aren’t that simple. Because religious beliefs are protected and there is a more diverse workforce, religious accommodation issues have increased. In 1998, there were 1,786 religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC. Ten years later, that number almost doubled to roughly 3,273 complaints. Although a diverse workforce is a source of strength for an organization, ironically it can simultaneously be a source of interpersonal conflict and liability.

Today’s employer has the obligation to assure that all employees are treated with respect, regardless of their religious faith. They are required to make reasonable exceptions to workplace policies and practices so employees of faith have the freedom to practice their religion at work, as long as the accommodation doesn’t cause an undue hardship. The challenge for employers is that requests for religious accommodations touch on almost every aspect of employment, and they often conflict with traditional workplace policy and practice. Whether and how to accommodate must be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, exceptions to strict dress codes may have to be made so an employee of faith can wear religious garb on the job, or display tattoos or piercings professed by the employee’s religion. However, some dress accommodations may be considered an undue hardship when the garb presents safety issues for the employee or others.

Armed with their rights, workers are sometimes vocal about their religion at work, because their religious teachings encourage followers to proselytize their beliefs to others. However, this right to proselytize to coworkers and customers must be balanced with the rights of those who ask them to refrain.

Religious accommodations sometimes focus on decorating of work spaces. If an employer allows personal items to decorate work spaces, an employee would normally have the right to decorate with religious objects. However, if that workspace is in public view, the employer may be able to rightfully deny the accommodation on the premise that the employee’s religious beliefs might be misconstrued as being representative of the company’s.

Employees often request time off for religious holidays or days of worship, or may want work breaks and separate areas to pray. Even special dietary food options for company picnics may be requested based on religious tenet. Regularly assigned job duties might also need to be considered for accommodation, as was the case when a group of pharmacists turned customers away, refusing to dispense birth control pills based on their own personal religious beliefs.

The majority of employees asking for religious accommodations are sincere in their beliefs, but some requests are made under the cloak of religion, but are based, in reality, on personal preference. Employers are expected to be able to discern the difference. Accommodations based on personal preferences are not required. According to the EEOC, religious beliefs are concerned with “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death” but does not include social, political, or economic philosophies, or personal preferences. Employers may inquire to determine if the request is based on a religious doctrine. A point of caution though. Religion covers not only traditional religions, but also religions that are new or uncommon. A religion doesn’t have to be part of a formal church or sect, and can be subscribed to by a small number of people. Beliefs may seem illogical, but it may be a religion just the same.

There are no easy cookie-cutter answers to making religious accommodations. Each request must be considered on the facts and circumstances, and in consideration of guidelines issued by the EEOC and the Courts. Links that offer guidance are found on the EEOC’s Web site at www. eeoc.gov. Although employers initially decide if it is reasonable to accommodate, it may end up that the EEOC or courts second guesses their decision.

Jim Evans is President of JK Evans & Associates LLC, a Zanesville-based human resource-consulting firm serving throughout Ohio. Jim can be reached at jime@evansandassociates.com.  You can visit Evans and Associates at http://www.evansandassociates.com

July 21, 2009 | Filed Under Current Events, Discrimination, Employment Law | Leave a Comment 

Governor signs Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

sb7861

Northwest Religious Liberty Association
Press Release – July 21, 2009

The Stage Was Set

On a sweltering Friday summer evening, and just two minutes prior to going on stage before approximately 2,000 Seventh-day Adventist Christians at the Gladstone, Oregon Campmeeting, the Honorable Representative Dave Hunt (D), Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Oregon Legislature, informed the president and staff of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association that Governor Ted Kulongoski had quietly signed Senate Bill 786, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, the day before, on Thursday, July 16, 2009.This was like music to our ears, as naysayers who did not fully understand the nature of the bill had been publicly urging the governor to veto it.

 

After this surprising announcement, the lobbying team of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA), represented by Greg Hamilton (its president), Doug Clayville (pastor of the Dallas and Fall City church district located just west of Salem, and vice president for the Oregon chapter of NRLA), and Rhonda Bolton (administrative assistant), were in a state of euphoric shock as they quickly processed this information while walking on stage to honor and thank the Speaker for his sponsorship of our bill.
 
Representative Hunt Publicly Recognized as a Champion of Religious Freedom

Greg Hamilton thanked the Speaker for his faithful diligence in championing religious freedom for all people of faith in Oregon, including Seventh-day Adventist Christians, by giving him a plaque with the symbol of the torch of religious freedom. He also praised Representative Hunt “for championing such a noble cause in the State of Oregon” and for “your foresight and leadership in making the Oregon bill the potential model for both state and federal Workplace Religious Freedom Acts.”
 
Hunt, who represents the Gladstone District, District 40, accepted our well-deserved praise and our gift honoring his efforts. He then praised the energetic and professional lobbying efforts of NRLA to get the bill passed, and thanked Seventh-day Adventists for supporting it. The crowd was energized with loud applauses throughout his “thank you” speech, particularly as he stated that we still have a lot to do in shoring up the free exercise of religion in Oregon, and that workplace religious freedom was just the beginning of his efforts in concert with NRLA.
 
Many in the audience were not aware that Representa-tive Hunt once served as President of the American Baptist Churches USA. At the start of Oregon’s 2009 Legislative Session he established a Biblical theme for all of his colleagues in the House to follow: of sharpening swords into plowshares. Every day—as he did on this night—he wore a metal pin of a plow on the lapel of his suit coat as a reminder to his colleagues. He gave a pin to each member, both Republicans and Democrats.

Legislative History

The Northwest Religious Liberty Association has had a close working relationship with Representative Hunt since the 2003 legislative session when they worked together on the Oregon Religious Freedom Act, which focused on restoring the “compelling state interest” and “least restrictive means” constitutional tests for the free exercise of religion in Oregon.
 
But that bill effort kept coming up short. So Representative Hunt, in consultation with NRLA, and others, came up with the idea in 2005 of initiating the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which affects Title VII Law involving civil rights and religious discrimination in the workplace.
 
Originally started in the House as HB 3539 during the 2007 legislative session, and reintroduced in 2009 as SB 786, this Act sought to change the definition of a business “undue hardship” for employees seeking “holy day” and “religious apparel” accommodations in the workplace and employers whose litigations costs rose in correlation with the increase in the number of minority faith group members and the number of religious discrimination claims being filed against them. This legislative Act, therefore, helps all people of faith, including religious minorities.
From the vantage point of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association, the approximately one hundred and fifty individuals that seek out its workplace mediation services each year, the evidence is clear that people of faith in the workplace too often confront impossible conflicts between their employment and their religious convictions.


Understanding the Specifics

What this Act does is clarify the responsibility of employers to accommodate the scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holy days, or for the wearing of religious apparel in the workplace unless it poses a “significant difficulty or expense” to their business(es).

 
More specifically, it restores the original federal Title VII legal standard involving religious discrimination which obligated employers to demonstrate that they reasonably attempted to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of their employees before claiming that such beliefs and practices posed a “significant difficulty” and “expense” for their business(es).
 

It also defines “undue hardship” more coherently.

 
In January 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) encouraged employers, in an official Title VII religious discrimination guideline, to document how and why a religious accommodation posed an “undue” business “hardship.” But this guideline is just that, only a guideline, and thus unenforceable. While the guideline is a helpful encouragement to employers, previous Oregon law provided employers with little basis for defending the decision to accommodate or to deny accommodation. As a result, employers often waved the claim of “undue hardship” like a magic wand without having to 1) define, explain, or demonstrate what that “undue hardship” was to the employee, or 2) how it really adversely affected their business in administrative terms, or in dollars and cents.
 
Some employers have regularly defined “undue hardship” as anything that caused a business “inconvenience,” and have used it as a false legal pretext to refuse, as a matter of policy, to accom-modate religious requests. A few unfortunate Supreme Court decisions, beginning with TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), reduced the definition of “undue hardship” to a “de minimis” or “mini-mal cost” standard in favor of the employer. As a result, this significantly placed people of faith at a disadvantage in the workplace and created unnecessary unemployment hardships for them. That is why the new law signed by Governor Kulongoski defines “undue hardship” as a “significant diffi-culty” and “expense” and will help relieve employers of so many discrimination claims against them.
 
The Successful Aftermath

Senate Bill 786 passed the Oregon Senate by a 63% percent vote on May 5 and by a 66% percent vote in the Oregon House of Representatives on May 29. Despite some controversy surrounding the bill in the last several days, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill July 16, 2009.
 
Representative Hunt left us a signed copy of the bill from the Governor’s Office which will be displayed at our Northwest Adventist Headquarters in Ridgefield, Washington.
 
We are, of course, thrilled and exhausted. The Northwest Religious Liberty Association team—along with the invaluable and timely assistance of attorney Michael Peabody, and the Senate Judiciary Committee testimonies of David Miller and Shani Balverio—put every professional effort possible toward a successful end. We did it for “you.” 
 
Thanks for your ongoing prayers and support. It was much appreciated.

The most appropriate summary is that God is gracious, God is good.

 

Visit the Northwest Religious Liberty Association online at http://www.nrla.com

July 21, 2009 | Filed Under Civil Rights, Current Events, Discrimination, Employment Law, New | Leave a Comment 

Justice Department Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Essex County, New Jersey (DOJ Release)

Justice Department Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Essex County, New Jersey
County Refused to Accommodate Muslim Employee’s Religious Headcovering

The Department filed a lawsuit today against Essex County, N.J., alleging that it discriminated against a Muslim corrections officer on the basis of her religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit alleges that the county refused to permit Yvette Beshier to wear a religiously mandated headscarf while working as a corrections officer.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion. Its religious discrimination provisions require employers to make a reasonable accommodation of employees’ religious observances and practices. The Justice Department enforces Title VII’s prohibitions against employment discrimination with respect to state and local governments.

According to the complaint, the Essex County Department of Corrections (DOC), first suspended Beshier and then terminated her on the ground that her wearing of a khimar (a head scarf) violated its uniform policy for corrections officers. The complaint alleges that Beshier had requested a religious accommodation that would permit her to wear her khimar, but the DOC denied her request.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court in Newark seeks a court order requiring Essex County to adopt a policy that reasonably accommodates the religious observances and practices of employees and prospective employees subject to the Essex County DOC’s uniform policy for corrections officers. The suit also seeks monetary damages and other relief for Beshier.

“Employees should not have to choose between their religious beliefs and their economic livelihood,” said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Federal law requires all employers, even those having policies regarding the wearing of uniforms, to reasonably accommodate the religious observances and practices of their employees.”

The filing of this lawsuit reflects the Civil Rights Division’s ongoing commitment to actively enforce Title VII’s prohibitions against religious discrimination. In February, the Division obtained court approval of a settlement agreement with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority requiring the authority to adopt a religious accommodation policy to its uniform requirements for bus drivers, and providing relief to a prospective Apostolic Pentecostal employee and two Muslim employees who required religious accommodations. The Division also has a pending suit against the New York City Transit Authority alleging it has discriminated against Muslims, Sikhs and other employees through its uniform policy.

Please visit http://www.usdoj.gov/crt for additional information about the Civil Rights Division and its law enforcement activities.

###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 8, 2009
WWW.USDOJ.GOVCRT
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

July 19, 2009 | Filed Under Current Events, Discrimination, Employment Law | Leave a Comment 

SB 786: Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Speaker Dave Hunt delivers a floor speech on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act.

July 17, 2009 | Filed Under Featured Video | Leave a Comment 

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signs the Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Breaking News:  We have received word that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has signed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786).

SB 786 requires employers to make credible attempts to accommodate religious holy day observance and religious dress. Prior to SB 786, employers in Oregon could make only the bare minimum effort to meet accommodation requirements. This bill will be a step forward in clarifying the responsibility of employers to their religious employees.

The bill had been under fire this week from some religious organizations who promoted the idea that WRFA was designed to prohibit teachers from wearing religious dress. In reality the bill had left an 80+ year prohibition on religious dress by teachers in the public schools in place after a 2007 version of WRFA had failed because it had eliminated the requirement.

House Speaker Dave Hunt who championed WRFA has pledged to work to remove the educational restriction next term, and RLTV will be very supportive of those efforts. Currently Oregon and Pennsylvania are the only states that have prohibitions on any religious dress by teachers.

The Federal WRFA bills, brought over the course of more than a decade would provide a much broader range of religious practices than simply dress or religious garb, however the ACLU and other groups have expressed concerns that overly broad requirements provide no real guidance to employers and could potentially create hostile work environments. Although this was not necessarily a realistic assessment of the effects of WRFA, the federal bill which gained bipartisan support from key legislators such as Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, and Elizabeth Dole still faced stiff opposition.

While the Oregon bill may not be all inclusive, it will provide religious employees who face the most common problems of holy days and garb an opportunity to keep their jobs and their faith. Other issues will be addressed through existing channels under the pre-SB 786 standard and may provide opportunity for clean-up legislation later.

For more information on the bill, visit http://www.religiousliberty.tv/tag/sb-786

July 17, 2009 | Filed Under Civil Rights, Current Events, Discrimination, Employment Law, New | Leave a Comment 

Oregon law is too strict on teachers’ religious garb (Oregonian)

EXCERPT:

In nearly every state in the union, local school districts have the discretion to say whether teachers can wear religious garb such as yarmulkes, turbans and head scarves while on the job. Not around these parts. Oregon is one of only two states with laws that expressly forbid public school teachers from wearing religious clothing.

Read the full article: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/07/oregon_law_on_teachers_religio.html

July 17, 2009 | Filed Under Current Events | Leave a Comment 

Law Professor Alan Brownstein on California marriage debate (Liberty Magazine)

Liberty has published a very insightful piece by University of California  – Davis law  professor Alan Brownstein regarding the controversial Proposition 8 debate.  Well worth reading in its entirety. 

Here is an excerpt:

“The use of exaggerated and disproportionate arguments to support Proposition 8 is no small matter. Because there is no objective way to define or measure religious belief and commitment, religious liberty, more than any other right, depends on the credibility of its advocates. As anyone who has lobbied and argued for religious liberty legislation and policies knows, we are often challenged by arguments about sham claims and manufactured beliefs. Thus, religious liberty advocates must be credible and their arguments must be accurate. The campaign for, and passage of, Proposition 8 will be a Pyrrhic victory for religious liberty at best if, as I fear, it convinced many Californians that claims about religious liberty cannot be trusted. “

…

“Religious liberty and equality is predicated on the right to be different. Its underlying principle is that we do not have to accept the truth or value of someone else’s religious beliefs in order to agree that those beliefs and practices deserve protection against discriminatory treatment. Followers of faiths we consider to be false may be sinners in our eyes, but we still protect their right to be free from government coercion and discrimination. For example, the Ten Commandments state that “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Yet the Constitution and religious liberty statutes clearly protect religions that violate this commandment. Doing so neither undermines the meaning of the Ten Commandments nor expresses government approval of nonmonotheistic faiths. It simply recognizes the importance of religious autonomy to human dignity and personal liberty.”

Read the full article at http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/793/1/114/

July 15, 2009 | Filed Under Civil Rights, Current Events, Family | Leave a Comment 

Shabbat in Commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King

Sixth & I Historic Synagogue and Turner Memorial A.M.E. Church present the fifth annual Shabbat in commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, celebrating their legacy of social justice and equality.

July 10, 2009 | Filed Under Featured Video | Leave a Comment 

July 2009 News and Opinion – The Economy, Marriage, and More

July 2009 News and Opinion – The Economy, Marriage, and More

Posted using ShareThis

July 3, 2009 | Filed Under Current Events | Leave a Comment 

Bronwyn Winter: Uncovering the French Headscarf Debate

The hijab is arguably the most discussed and controversial item of women’s clothing today. It has become the primary global symbol of female Muslim identity for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and is the focus of much debate in the confrontation between Islam and the West. Nowhere has this debate been more acute or complex than in France.

In Hijab and the Republic, Bronwyn Winter provides a riveting account of the controversial 2004 French law to ban Islamic headscarves and other religious signs from public schools. While much has been written on the subject, Winter offers a unique feminist perspective, carefully delineating its political and cultural aspects.

July 3, 2009 | Filed Under Featured Video | 10 Comments 

Next Page »