Religious Discrimination in the Workplace
...on a qualification that is reasonably necessary to do business. It will be shown how these various defenses apply to the employer and Title VII helped employees to prevail. Methods Data for this analysis report of religious discrimination in the hiring practices of companies was collected in a variety of ways. We began by discussing our personal experiences and speaking with others in the job market regarding religious discrimination. A few people responded that they felt they were being discriminated against because of their religion, however it was difficult to prove. Therefore, as a team, we pooled resource from local libraries and the internet. We found a plethora of statistics, court cases and examples relating to this sensitive matter. From there we decided to do some field work to see if companies really followed the procedures set forth to them by the EEOC. Our team went to various employers and asked for employment applications. After compiling all the data and other relevant information, the final product is this paper which contains our findings, analysis, and recommendations. Results and Analysis A. Case Studies Religion is an emerging issue in the workplace because it is an aspect of diversity. As mangers strive to deal with differences and similarities involving race, gender, age, sexual preference, and origin, it is logical that the belief system is also a component. Professionals agree that religion is a factor in shaping values and ethics. Author and CEO Laurie Beth Jones feels that, "If someone has religious beliefs, then chances are they will be a good worker (Ettore 16)." When hiring a new employee, there are four key things that she looks for and asks each candidate (Ettore 17): 1. Greatest Hope 2. Deepest Fear 3. Secret Hope 4. Biggest Dream Jones believes that by learning these key things about a person, a manager would be able to know how to properly motivate their employees and draw valid work experience from them. Many employees regard their jobs as an extension of their family and their belief system which guides their behavior. The best thing an employee can do, according to Jones, is be themselves in an interview. Applicants should answer questions openly and honestly, hiding nothing That is exactly what Marwa, a devout Muslim did. At her interview, she wore her traditional head covering which was complimented on by the interviewer. Shortly after being hired, she was to be promoted to a position in which she would be supporting the company's president at a convention. However, the managerial consultant terminated her, stating that she portrayed an "undesirable image" to their clients. Marwa filed a lawsuit because she felt that her termination was a direct result of her Muslim identity. Marwa won her lawsuit because in her personnel file, it stated that she had a professional appearance and demeanor. Her work evaluation showed that she performed her duties in a professional and efficient manor with a good work ethic. There was no evidence in her file citing deterioration of the quality of her work. It was also noted in her file that she had worn her religious head covering at her interview. She did not conceal anything and was fired unjustly, as a result winning the case. (Brett 17) Marwa did the right thing and did not conceal her identity. However not everyone is so open and honest. An unnamed female applicant for a parking attendant job did not wear her traditional head covering to her initial interview because she had been turned down from jobs due to it in the past. Once she began working, she wore her head covering instead of the required baseball cap. The company allowed her to do this, until a client complained. When she refused to wear the cap she was fired. When brought into the court of law, the court ruled in favor of the woman. Originally the court was going to decide against her, because she concealed her religious beliefs in order to be hired, nor did she object when the uniform was given to her. However, when the court investigated the company, they found that there were other employees who altered their uniform dress without any correction from management. Due to the fact that the parking lot company "did not enforce it's uniform policy in a consistent manner, the court ruled in favor of the woman and had her reinserted with back pay, and a provision that allowed her to wear her religious head covering." (Brett 23) This is an example of disparate treatment because the parking lot company did not uniformly apply the rules to all employees. Concealment on the part of the potential employee is a prominent cause that leads to an employee claiming religious discrimination. In the Balint vs. Carson City Nevada case of May 1998, Lisette Baliant applied for a position in the Sheriff's Department. On her job application, she indicated that she was willing to work all shifts, including graveyard, swing, weekends, and holidays. She did not mention a religious objections to any of the shifts. Upon being hired, she was given a swing shift assignment which she said she could not work due her religious observance. The Sheriff's Department fired her and a lawsuit resulted. The court ruled that the Sheriff's Department had every right to fire Baliant because she concealed her religious restrictions. The court also stated that "Title VII provides that it is not an unlawful employment practice to apply a bona fide seniority system where there is no intent to discriminate." (www.hrlawindex.com) The only organizations which are allowed to make their employees wear specific articles of clothing are the military and the police (Brett 19). The reason for this is that the uniformity is required as a matter of security and identification purposes. These are all 'bona fide occupations qualifications' (Mallor 1113). Aside from the laws specified for clothing, there are no specific laws that apply to grooming standards. For example, an Orthodox Jewish man with a beard and a yamakah applied for a position in a corporation that prohibited facial hair and hats as part of its grooming standards. The applicant made a request for a religious accommodation that was denied. He was told that he could not be considered for a position even though he was highly qualified. The court ruled in favor of the Orthodox man because the company dress code was deemed discriminatory because it did not allow for religious exceptions. (Brett 20) This case is an example of disparate impact because any potential applicants in an religious organization that requires facial hair and/or a head covering would be denied of the job. According to an article in the magazine The Futurist, the trend of religious discrimination is increasing. This is because we are living in a global economy that causes companies to operate seven days a week. In Hamby vs. Wal-Mart Stores in1995, an employee was scheduled to repeatedly work on Sundays although he indicated on his application that he could not work on that day because it was his Sabbath (The Changing Workplace 750). Wal-Mart denied any wrongdoing, and eventually settled the case out of court. As a result, Wal-Mart chose to change its Human Resource policies and conduct extensive training to prevent religious discrimination in it's stores (Kurtz 13). According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in Virginia, an employer must consider an employees request not to work on their Sabbath day. However, the employer is justified in dismissing an employee if accommodating them will cause undue hardship such a paying overtime to other employees or being short of staff. (Reid 52) Michael Karpeles, head of an employment law firm in Chicago, feels that if a company is struggling with religious issues, the manager should make it clear that reasonable efforts will be made to help accommodate employees' religious expressions. However, "helping to achieve the company's objective should always be employees' primary concern, at least during business hours. Anything that interferes with that should be addressed and corrected" (The Futurist 21). In 1996, a study at Vanderbilt University, found that many corporations modeled themselves on rationality in their hiring and day to day practices. They see their company as "Little Erector Sets that do not touch people" (Ettore). It follows the rational that potential employees do not disclose non professional information or their religious beliefs. Management is sometimes resistant to change due to groupthink tendencies, therefore choosing not to hire the candidate (Kreitner 303). However, management can not always correct religious discrimination. Sometimes management is part of the problem. Deputy Inspector Howard Mandell filed a lawsuit against the Suffolk County police department on March 11,1999. Mandell worked his way up the ranks in his department for 30 years. Since he began working there in 1969, he said that he had been subjected to many ethnic insults such as being called "Jew boy" and "the Jew". Although this created a hostile environment for Mandell to work in that persists to this day, he preserved. The lawsuit claimed that Mandell had previous promotions withheld because he had spoken out publicly against police practices including bigotry in the department. Mandell said that his previous promotions were given to him because of seniority and cases that he had worked on. However, his next promotion could be by appointment only. The Suffolk County Police Department has been charged with other types of discrimination as well. In 1996, it was given a citation from the EEOC for a "pattern of discrimination against black, Hispanics and female officers" that included the denial of promotions." (McQuiston 6) In summary, the courts have sided with employees when an employee has made a reasonable effort to disclose that their job assignments conflicted with their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the courts have supported the employer when the employee has not disclosed objectionable working conditions. This shows that Title VII protects both the employer and the employee. B. Managerial Implications in the Hiring Process Companies found to discriminate against religion are required to change their employment application and practices. The following chart compiled by Walter Liszka, demonstrates what types of questions are lawful and unlawful to ask. Subject Lawful Inquiry Unlawful Inquiry Address Current place or residence? For how long? Age Are you under 18? How old are you? Arrest Record Have you been convicted of a crime? Have you ever been arrested Birth Control None Anything dealing with sex Birth Date None Birth certificate Birth Place None What country are you from? Citizenship Are you a US citizen? When were you a citizen? Disability None Do you have a disability? Languages What can be spoken and written fluently? What is your native tongue? Marital Status None Ms., Miss or Mrs. National Origin None Ancestry, or nationality Organization Membership in relevant organizations List of all clubs that you participate in Photograph None Can't require a photograph Race / Color None What is your complexion? Religion or Creed None What religion are you? Sex None Are you Male of Female? In addition to these guidelines, the EEOC recommends that there be a disclaimer statement on the bottom of all employment applications stating that they do not discriminate. For example, on the back of the application for Walden Bookstores, which is owned by Borders Group Inc, it states, "Borders Group Inc is an Equal Opportunity Employer. (see Appendix Exhibit 1) McDonalds takes it a step further with their statement, "An Equal Opportunity Employer Committed to a Diverse Workforce." (see Appendix Exhibit 2) The Disney Store's statement reads, "We are committed to cultural diversity and equal opportunity employment… Staffing needs vary per...