Is A Strict Dress Code A Defense For The Company?

In “Working it Out” by Diana Eck, she writes about religious oppression in the workplace. The examples she gives on the many ways people have been fired, or the ways in which people's faiths have been compromised, reiterates that the amendment that states freedom of religion in the United States, is

Have you ever been excluded from learning because of what you wore to school? In most schools, dress codes are set in place to provide a better learning space for all students. Having a dress code can oppress students because students are given the impression that they should not express themselves. Not all families can afford the clothes that abide by the rules. For example, some students don 't have the means to pay for new clothes, so they have to use hand-me-down clothing. Enforcing a dress code can lead to more problems in the long run because of the exceptions made for students who are athletes and cheerleaders. Many school faculty members including teachers and administrators think that keeping a dress code will keep students looking appropriate while learning, but this idea is wrong because it keeps students from expressing themselves and, the dress code singles out women.

This says it is unlawful to discriminate against people at work because of their religion or belief. The regulations also cover training that is to do with work.

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

In this case it is clear that company has to undergo hardship to accommodate the employees’ religious beliefs.

time off from work to practice their faith and celebrate religious holidays. Employers may face

Synopsis: “Are Dresscodes Unfair to Girls” is a podcast episode produced by CBC’s The Current. Its aim was to explore the gender inequality involved in the public school system regarding dress codes through interviews with students, parents, and school administrators. Multiple sides of the debate were argued, showing the complexity of a relatively important issue.

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

The religious discrimination lawsuits filed in federal court with the EEOC indicate that there were employees who believed their religious rights were not being protected. For example, Omari v. Waste Gas Fabricating Co. was a 2005 9/11 backlash case. Omari, a Muslim from Algeria, filed a claim with the EEOC for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Omari claimed that he was repeatedly called “Osama, terrorist, cave dweller, camel driver,” and was accused of making bombs and questioned as to whether or not he knew how to drive a plane into a building. Omari rejected the accusations and tried to explain that he was not an Arab, but the comments did

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

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that all employers must make practical accommodation to hold spiritual beliefs of their employee absent unwarranted hardship, therefore it is not considered discrimination (EEOC.org). By offering her a position within the classification department I feel follows Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she was able to wear her khimar without the potential for injury while mingling with

when for an employer to ask the Muslim employee to remove their hijab at work. I think so.

Thus, it will be very helpful to see an actual issue of workplace discrimination toward Muslim women and the practice of hijab, as well as treatment and recommendation. Since my research topic is about discrimination against specific race or religion, Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an essential and base policy that could solve the issue (“Civil Rights Act of 1964”). Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is more recent policy that protect employees from any kinds of workplace violence ("Workplace Violence Prevention Policy"). However, Muslim women have still experienced workplace discrimination and job stress, so my research would help to make these acts more influential or create a better policy through overall workplace situation and Muslim

In conclusion, dress codes should be necessary at all workplaces. Dress codes can make companies more professional, they can potentially prevent injuries, they can help locate employees, and they can be considered perks. Dress codes are useful

Due to Sonia’s religious beliefs management should understand and accommodate Sonia’s personal choice for attire. Because Sonia’s attire does not impose undue hardship on the organization’s legitimate business interests, there is no reason not to allow Sonia’s attire in the work place. In order to prove undue hardship an employer must be able to prove that any accommodation would require more than ordinary business costs, diminish efficiency in other jobs, impair workplace safety, infringe on the rights and benefits of other employees, cause other coworkers to carry the burden of the accommodated employee’s hazardous or burdensome work, or conflict with other laws or regulations (Gross, 2012, para 10).