Religious Accommodation In The Workplace

There are many diverse workplaces throughout this country. Diverse in race, ethnicity, background, education, and religious beliefs. The United States in some areas have many people practicing different religious beliefs and can do so freely because of the first amendment. Even in the workplace, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows all employees to safely practice their religion without workplace discrimination and are allowed accommodations for their practices under most circumstances. Religious accommodation in the workplace, is a very difficult process for some management as they aren’t sure what process or decision-making roles they can legally make, which makes implementing this law harder than it needs to be. Management do

In 1972 it was amended to include requirements that employers accommodate employee’s religious practices. This act applies to employers that have 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and the federal government (McConnell, 1991). Accommodating religious practices is what happens when a conflict arises in the workplace between employer and employee’s religious requirements. The employer allows accommodations to decrease hardship of this conflict on the employee religious practices and also tries to make sure minimal changes are made to workplace processes to allow this accommodation. This Act is not exclusively for those practicing Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and etc. It protects those who have any type of religious beliefs. Religion as determined by the EEOC is defined my ultimate ideas about life, purpose, and death. Political, social, or philosophical ideas are not protected under Title VII (McConnell, 1991). Title VII does protect religious beliefs that are traditional and nontraditional. They can be new, old, uncommon, and unaffiliated under religious institutions. The religion does not have to have a certain amount of members to be defined as a religion. Religion is loosely defined as the level of sincerity someone has about their beliefs (McConnell,

Department of Health and Human Services (2002) was a case of an African American female of Muslim faith. The employee felt like the employer was questioning her sincerity to her beliefs and then suspending her for when she took leave for a religious holiday, the Supreme Court ended up ruling in her favor. Harris and Armstrong v. Department of Transportation shows a case where management must do more than just change the schedule to accommodate religious beliefs, but make an active effort especially for long-term accommodations (Lupu & Tuttle, 2010). Dachman v. Department of Health and Human Services in 2001 shows a different case where Title VII does not have to accommodate preferences. A doctor wanted time off to prepare for Sabbath (Lupu & Tuttle, 2010). The Supreme court stated that while an employer has a duty to adjust or make accommodations to an employee’s religious beliefs, they don’t have to accommodate any type of preferences (Lupu & Tuttle, 2010). In this case, the employer did not have to give Dachman more time off to do things such as cook and prepare for the Sabbath.These sort of cases, does not mean management should think they can deny a case believing its based on preference not beliefs held as the lines can become very blurry in this area. As in some cases this can be scene as discrimination and others such as Dachmans just a preference (Lupu & Tuttle, 2010). Employers must be aware of the employees first amendment religion and speech rights.