Keywords: Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC, Ramadan, hijab, Somalia, workplace diversity, religion
If your employer ever tells you that you can't wear religious attire at work, tell him or her about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects people of all religious beliefs and requires employers to provide "reasonable accommodation" to allow employees to practice their religion.
Take, for example, the case of Bilan Nur, a refugee from Somalia who got a job at Alamo Car Rental in Phoenix and wore a hijab, or headscarf, during Ramadan. When met with resistance about wearing the hijab, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Nur agreed to wear a company-approved scarf with the Alamo Car Rental logo on it. Still, eight days before Ramadan ended in December 2001, the company fired Nur and declared her ineligible for rehire.
It took six long years, but the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)--a federal government agency that enforces U.S. antidiscrimination laws in the workplace--fought to help Nur win a religious-discrimination suit, and in June 2007, she was awarded more than $287,000 in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages.
After her win, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) issued the following statement: "This is a fair and just end to the racist dismissal of Ms. Nur from her job. We hope that this case will serve as an example that discrimination will not be tolerated in any environment, and that those who engage in such unlawful action will be held accountable."
Nur's case is not unique. In the years following 9/11, the EEOC saw a quick rise in such cases. In fact, the number of religion-based charges rose from 2,127 in fiscal year 2001 to 2,541 in fiscal year 2006, according to the EEOC. The EEOC resolved 2,387 of the 2006 cases and recovered $5.7 million in monetary benefits for those who pressed charges.
But as with any law, there are loopholes--and while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people of all religious beliefs, it also states that an employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious practices, including clothing, if they 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.
One example is the case of Bhatia v. Chevron USA. Bhatia, a member of the Sikh religion, which generally does not permit shaving, lost his case with Chevron USA because of their clean-shaven policy. The nature of Bhatia's work required him to use a respirator that formed a tight seal with the face to prevent exposure to chemical fumes. Because of his beard, there was no way the respirator could be used properly, and the circuit court ruled in favor of Chevron USA. The company had attempted to find Bhatia a different but comparable job that did not require the use of a respirator, and the company's safety precautions were in line with federal regulations.
Readers' Comments
I would never presume to limit the wearing of headscarves, crosses, or modest clothing. What, though, about clothing, not otherwise prescribed by the religion, which is an expression of belief? For example, if you worked in a bank in which suits were the norm, and an employee chose to wear a t-shirt with the words, "Jesus Saves" in large print on the front instead of a more traditional shirt. Nothing in any branch of Christianity suggests that adherents should not wear shirts or should wear t-shirts, nor that good Christians must proclaim their beliefs in large letters on their clothing. Yet asking someone so attired to change clothing (especially since I am not a Christian myself) could lead to charges of suppression of religious expression.
.