New EEOC Guidelines on Religion in the Workplace
July 24, 2008
Earlier this week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published new guidelines on religious accommodation and discrimination in the workplace. The guidelines clarify EEOC’s position about employers’ duty to accommodate particular beliefs and practices, as well as the standards for employers to show that a requested accommodation would cause “undue hardship.”
"Religion" Is Broadly Defined
Under federal law, “religion” of course includes mainstream faiths and practices. But it also includes beliefs that are not dictated or even recognized by any church or organization, and neither EEOC nor courts are likely to scrutinize practices that appear to be sincerely held. The distinction between religious beliefs and personal choices, however, can be confusing. An example in the new guidelines is a Seventh-day Adventist who believes the scriptures require her to be a vegetarian – even though not all Adventists share that belief. On the other hand, people who become vegetarians based on health reasons or personal preference are not expressing a religious belief.
Other examples contrast two employees who have tattoos that the employer would like them to conceal. One has ceremonial symbols expressing devotion to an ancient Egyptian god, making display of the tattoos a religious observance for which accommodation must be considered. The other employee uses body art as a form of self-expression, so requiring that those tattoos be concealed would not affect a religious practice.
Accommodations Are Required, But Only To A Point
The guidelines emphasize that accommodations are not required if the employer would suffer undue hardship – that is, “more than de minimis cost." EEOC will make this determination on a case-by-case basis, and it will consider the potential burden on the conduct of the employers’ business in addition to monetary costs. Thus, shift swaps that would violate a labor agreement or require the employer to pay premium wages for an extended period would likely qualify as an undue hardship. Morale problems or jealousy among co workers, however, normally would not qualify as an undue burden.
Workplace prayer and proselytizing can cause conflicts with customers or other employees, and resolution of these issues will likewise depend on the particular facts. In one example, EEOC contrasts two employees who hang "Jesus Saves" posters at their work stations. One employee has a private office, and no other employees complain about the poster. Under these circumstances, EEOC states that allowing the poster would probably be a required accommodation. However, the other employee in the example works at a desk in the lobby. Because visitors might think the poster represents the company’s views, the employer can likely prohibit it.
Although the new EEOC guidelines are 94 pages long, they leave many questions unanswered. Overall, they reaffirm that religious accommodation is extremely fact-sensitive and must be handled cautiously. As for harassment and discrimination based on religion, employers’ policies on other types of protected characteristics and prohibited conduct should apply with equal force to religious matters. The number of religion-based claims is increasing, and Taft’s Labor and Employment attorneys are available to discuss any issues you may face.
"Religion" Is Broadly Defined
Under federal law, “religion” of course includes mainstream faiths and practices. But it also includes beliefs that are not dictated or even recognized by any church or organization, and neither EEOC nor courts are likely to scrutinize practices that appear to be sincerely held. The distinction between religious beliefs and personal choices, however, can be confusing. An example in the new guidelines is a Seventh-day Adventist who believes the scriptures require her to be a vegetarian – even though not all Adventists share that belief. On the other hand, people who become vegetarians based on health reasons or personal preference are not expressing a religious belief.
Other examples contrast two employees who have tattoos that the employer would like them to conceal. One has ceremonial symbols expressing devotion to an ancient Egyptian god, making display of the tattoos a religious observance for which accommodation must be considered. The other employee uses body art as a form of self-expression, so requiring that those tattoos be concealed would not affect a religious practice.
Accommodations Are Required, But Only To A Point
The guidelines emphasize that accommodations are not required if the employer would suffer undue hardship – that is, “more than de minimis cost." EEOC will make this determination on a case-by-case basis, and it will consider the potential burden on the conduct of the employers’ business in addition to monetary costs. Thus, shift swaps that would violate a labor agreement or require the employer to pay premium wages for an extended period would likely qualify as an undue hardship. Morale problems or jealousy among co workers, however, normally would not qualify as an undue burden.
Workplace prayer and proselytizing can cause conflicts with customers or other employees, and resolution of these issues will likewise depend on the particular facts. In one example, EEOC contrasts two employees who hang "Jesus Saves" posters at their work stations. One employee has a private office, and no other employees complain about the poster. Under these circumstances, EEOC states that allowing the poster would probably be a required accommodation. However, the other employee in the example works at a desk in the lobby. Because visitors might think the poster represents the company’s views, the employer can likely prohibit it.
Although the new EEOC guidelines are 94 pages long, they leave many questions unanswered. Overall, they reaffirm that religious accommodation is extremely fact-sensitive and must be handled cautiously. As for harassment and discrimination based on religion, employers’ policies on other types of protected characteristics and prohibited conduct should apply with equal force to religious matters. The number of religion-based claims is increasing, and Taft’s Labor and Employment attorneys are available to discuss any issues you may face.
