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.

EEOC Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination

On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued a press release proclaiming that it has issued "COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE ON RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION” (Why the EEOC must use all caps in its press releases is a mystery.)

I've discussed religious employment discrimination issues in a prior posting. There, I reported on a North Carolina federal appeals court decision where the EEOC wanted the employer to waive the employer's neutrally and consistently applied attendance policy for an employee whose religious prohibited working on a Saturday. The EEOC Compliance Manual leaves no doubt that it continues to disagree with the court's decision. I won't repeat that discussion here.

Because of a recent lawsuit (in which I have no involvement) in the news, I was curious to see how the manual addressed the religious clothing issues. The manual is an utter disaster. It provides neither employees nor employers with coherent guidance on when an employer must permit, despite a dress code or uniform requirement, religious dress. The EEOC's ambiguous statements are as follows:

"religious discrimination may be found where an employer fails to accommodate the employee’s religious dress or grooming practices" - no doubt true, but the statement is far too vague to be of any help.

"Some courts have concluded that it would pose an undue hardship if an employer was required to accommodate a religious dress or grooming practice that conflicts with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers." So what is the EEOC's position? All it then says is: "While there may be circumstances in which allowing a particular exception to an employer’s dress and grooming policy would pose an undue hardship, an employer’s reliance on the broad rubric of 'image' to deny a requested religious accommodation may in a given case be tantamount to reliance on customer religious bias (so-called 'customer preference') in violation of Title VII." There is no explanation whatsoever as to how an employer should decide whether their public image permits them to assert the accommodation would be an "undue hardship." The example the EEOC gives (customers might fear a worker is a terrorist for wearing a hijab (head scarf)) is so obvious it is laughable.

The final sentence of this section: "There may be limited situations in which the need for uniformity of appearance is so important that modifying the dress code would pose an undue hardship. However, even in these situations, a case-by-case determination is advisable."

We are a diverse country and, compared to most (even some "western" countries), remarkably tolerant of each other's religious views (not that further improvement wouldn't be welcome). That diversity and tolerance carries with a price. For employers, that price includes making unpopular and/or difficult decisions. More so than with any other protected class, religious employment discrimination issues force someone to compromise a principle. Given what is at stake, employers and employees deserved to receive much clearer guidance on this point from the EEOC.