Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Religious Practices that Discriminate Because of Gender

Consider the following scenario:

You have recently hired a male employee.  When you are introducing him to his co-workers, an African-American co-worker offered her hand to greet him but he refused to shake hands. The new employee explained that he did not touch women because of his Muslim religion. When a human resources manager spoke with him about the incident, the new employee said that it was the co-worker’s female gender, not her race, which prompted his response.

What do you do?  You have an obligation to accommodate the new employee's religious practices but you also have to make sure that his religious practices do not create a hostile environment for women.

This scenario was presented to the EEOC for an opinion last year.  The EEOC's associate general counsel  responded by letter in an "informal" (non-binding) opinion.  Her answer was to say it depends on what is an undue hardship under the religious discrimination principles of Title VII:

  • courts have found, and the Commission has stated, that encroaching on co-workers’ ability to perform their duties or subjecting or threatening to subject co-workers to a hostile work environment “will generally constitute undue hardship.
  • a showing of undue hardship requires more than speculation about negative consequences or expressions of discomfort, irritation, or annoyance by co-workers.
What if the newly hired employee is a sales person?  Can the employer consider customer offense in deciding whether the new employee's refusal to shake hands with a woman is an undue hardship?
  • The courts also are inclined to find undue hardship if the employee’s religious expression can be perceived by customers as the employer’s own message.
The employer, the EEOC said, should evaluate the actual impact the new employee has.  If he "conveys negativity about women" (or conveys "an intent to demean based on gender") then the employer can take action but if he get along fine with women, they should not.  The same rule would apply to interactions with co-workers.  

When an employer is faced with what we can call the "no win" scenario, there are at least two key points to remember.  
  • I have never heard of a court criticizing or punishing an employer for providing appropriate training to its employees.  Bad training, of course, is a different story.
  • It is far better to document observations than to make conclusory statements.  If you are like me, and don't well recall details, writing down what you observe ("just the facts") is crucial.  Getting in court and simply saying, to use this scenario as an example, the new guy didn't get along with women because of his religion, is only going to increase the fees you pay your attorney.

No comments: