Case Study of Dress Code

The United States is one of the most culturally and religiously diverse countries in the world. The founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that its people would have the ability to practice their religion with no threat of persecution. In order to accomplish the goal of religious freedom and continue to ensure that all people of any religion would be free to practice their religion, the United States passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits an employer from discriminating based on the religious views of its employees. As the citizens of the United States spend a large amount of time in their places of employment, religious practices that these employees feel are necessary for the true observance of their religion must be accommodated by the employers. This law contends that in cases where the accommodation of religious practices of its employees does not create undue hardships, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees to practices the beliefs of their religion. As the demographics of the United States continues to change with more religiously diverse people immigrating to the country, employers are coming under more pressure to ensure they are taking all possible precautions to accommodate the religious practices of its employees. These precautions are important as the once an employee has established a bona fide complaint of religious discrimination, the burden of proof then falls on the employer to prove they

Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Company 15 F.3d 1375 (6th Cir 1994) case supports our recommendation of litigation because Cooper could not establish prima facie case of discrimination, that Oak reasonably accommodated her religious beliefs. The district court concluded that Oak could not have relieved Cooper all Saturday work responsibility without suffering undue hardship, i.e., the need to hire another employee or a resulting loss of production.

In the article Religious-Discrimination Claims on the Rise by Melanie Trottman, it is stated that “the EEOC received 3,811 religion-based complaints in fiscal 2012, the second-highest level ever and just below the record 4,151 in 2011” (Trottman, 2013, p. 1). In another article Study: Workplace Religious Discrimination on the Rise by Mike Ward lists similar number of religion-based complaints. The article by Trottman mentions that the EEOC has filed religious-discrimination lawsuits against companies in the fast-food, hair-salon, aviation, hotel, retail, medical and health-services industries. A recent case that the article mentions is about Muslim woman who worked at Abercrombie and was fired by the manager because her hijab violated

You have raised some great points as to J.C. encounter of unlawful religious discrimination. As you said J.C. tried to compromise with his employer by packing or wearing his dreads in a neat and professional matter. But as a result his employer refused which resulted in J.C. losing his job. I agree with your analysis that the company's actions toward J.C. is violation of Title VII. However I also believe that it is a violation of his first amendment right. As a citizen of this so called great land, we are allowed to practice our religion and face no form of discrimination. This case not only describes a violation against Title VII but also the first amendment

Despite the reasonable intent, Abercrombie and Fitch crossed a line when they refused to allow some leeway when it was for a religious cause, much like Trans World Airlines in the TWA v. Hardison case. Trans World Airlines fired Hardison after he refused coming into work on Saturday due to his religious beliefs. He sued TWA and won, claiming his religious beliefs were being sabotaged by unjust work hours. These cases are alike in the way that the employers declined to accommodate to an employee's religious needs, excusing their actions by saying the person in question didn’t follow company

I believe a strict dress code is a definitely a defense for the company, however, in my opinion, I did not think they executed there reasoning behind this definition the correct way.

Under the title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination. Discrimination of basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. If a profit corporation have religious beliefs they will be able to argue they have the right to side-step Title VII and, for example, hire only those who sign a “statement of faith” or share the same religious

I was able to find that UPS decide to incorporate a “no beards” policy while working for the company. This policy led to a lawsuit for the company. “The EEOC claims that the shipping company didn’t provide religious exemptions to its look policy, which requires workers to be “clean cut”” (Zillman, 2015, pg.1). The reasoning behind this lawsuit was due to a Muslim applying for a position at UPS and the company told him that he would have to shave his beard to be eligible for the position. His beard was part of his religion and UPS disregarded that and told him he would have to shave it to meet the policy expectations of UPS. “” God would understand,” if he trimmed it, the applicant was told, and if he chose not to, he could apply for a lower paying job” (Zillman, 2015, pg.1). Naturally, UPS faced a lawsuit, for not only talking to a person like this, but also because the company was deliberately disregarding the religious rights this future employee has. Since this, UPS has provided accommodations for employees with certain religious practices regarding facial hair and has even gone the extra mile to provide times where employees can

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion. In fact, the law “requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee when that employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observance conflict with a work requirement unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship to the employer” (Fowler-Hermes & Gierbolini, 2014, p. 34).

Although many companies set dress codes, proper training should take place explaining the need for possible exceptions due to necessary accommodations, especially for management (Durant, 2017). While a grooming policy is instituted for various reasons, such as safety, professional image, as well as avoidance of inappropriate employee choices, modifications must be considered for religious beliefs or disability needs unless that accommodation puts undue hardship on the company (Bernardin & Russell, 2013). Loss of customers due to their concern over the appearance of an employee is not considered a hardship. In fact, the Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie reiterated that Title VII requires that “favored treatment”, not just neutrality” should prevail when a religious belief clashes with the employer dress and grooming policies (King, 2016). Likewise, an employer’s perception that customers may have a problem with a certain look, is not a valid reason that a person is not hired. In most cases, if the company reasonably should have known that a particular part of an applicant’s appearance is due to a religious belief, even if the applicant does not address the issue, the company is still held to the standard of accommodation. One possible exception to that “should have known” rule may be if the

Question: What does Title VII Prohibit in the workplace in regards to religious freedom and expression?

As a practicing Muslim Elauf wore her hijab to the interview. During the interview neither Elauf or the interviewer Heather Cooke, the assistant store manager, mentioned the hijab or anything else related to Elauf’s religion. Upon completion of the interview it was determined by Cooke that Elauf was a good candidate for employment. Even though she was deemed fit for the position, Cooke was worried that Elauf’s hijab would violate the company’s Look Policy. Abercrombie’s Look Policy includes a strict “no caps” guideline. Cooke’s concern led her to ask both her store manager and district manager. Cooke then alluded to her superiors that she believed Elauf wore a hijab for religious reasons. It was at this point that Cooke was instructed not to hire Elauf because her hijab violated their policy. The EEOC, on behalf of Elauf, brought a suit against Abercrombie & Fitch Inc., for their alleged violation of Title VII. While the district court found in favour of Elauf, awarding her $20,000 in damages, the Tenth Circuit court reversed this decision. They did so claiming that for an employer to be held liable the applicant must request or discuss the accommodation that they are seeking to provide the actual knowledge of said

In 2011, the EEOC filed a race discrimination law suit against a Minnesota-based aerospace and defense manufacturer; Alliant Techsystems, Inc (ATK). The specifics of the case are that a black female applied for a position to provide technical or IT support for ATK executives (Forster, 2015). The applicant had been interviewed on a number of occasions in May of 2007. However, after her first interview the recruiter advised her to remove her hair brands to appear more professional (Forster, 2015). The applicant did so for the remaining interviews, with the exception of her final interview with the IT Director. Even so, the recruiter told the female applicant that the company wanted to hire her and Human Resources would be in contact. Yet, when the company represented contacted the female, she was told “she did not fit the image of the IT position and would not be hired for the job” (Forster, 2015, para. 5). Then, in June of 2007 ATK hired

In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie & Fitch, a teenager Samantha Elauf filed against Abercrombie and Fitch’s company after she was denied employment at a store for “failing to accommodate” because she wore a hijab for religious practice. The incident first began in 2008 after Samantha’s interview with an employer at a store in Oklahoma. After she was informed of the reason why she wasn't hired, she filed a court case against the company for religious discrimination. In the District Court of Oklahoma, the court decided that Abercrombie’s “look policy” stating that employees must abide by dress code rules was perfectly reasonable. They agreed with the employer that Samantha must take off her hijab for work regardless

When it comes to dress code, every individual has a different viewpoint for its implementation. There are clothes that could be fashionable to one person but seen as offensive to another. A dress code can be justifiable when put into a situation that really does require certain attire to be worn. It gives a sense of formality and distinguishes an individual apart from a group. This report seeks to compare and contrast the characteristics of school dress codes with that of dress codes in the workplace.