(UNDATED) Complaints of religious discrimination in the workplace are on the rise, but civil rights advocates say that may not be such a bad thing.
That’s because a likely reason for a steady rise in reported incidents has nothing to do with intolerant corporate cultures but rather religious minorities who are more aware of their rights and more willing to exercise them.
“Before, somebody might have prayed kind of quietly at work and hoped nobody would stop them and didn’t really want to ask permission,” says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). “Now they state openly: `Yes, I’d like permission. Is there an open room where I could pray?”‘
Between 1992 and 2007, claims of religious discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission more than doubled, from 1,388 to 2,880. Among the contributing factors: a growing U.S. population and tensions precipitated by an increasingly diverse workforce.
But recent years have also ushered in a new era of assertiveness, especially among members of minority faiths that require specific codes of dress, diet or behavior, according to David Miller, director of Princeton University’s Faith & Work Initiative.
“They’re not the kind of complaints you would have seen 10 or 15 years ago,” Miller says.
In analyzing EEOC claims, Miller finds relatively few incidents of religious bullying, such as proselytizing managers who insist all employees attend Bible study sessions. More commonly, he sees cases in which employees demand a right to religious expression on the job.
Muslims petition for breaks to pray at appointed times of day, for instance, or Seventh-day Adventists seek Saturdays off to honor their Sabbath.
And when their bosses say no, workers increasingly file formal complaints.
Proving religious discrimination on the job can be an uphill battle.
Under the amended Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers must practice “reasonable accommodation” of an employee’s religion unless doing so would pose “undue hardship” for the organization.
“The Courts have defined `undue hardship’ to mean anything above a de minimis cost or inconvenience,” said Barry Bussey, associate director of the Seventh-day Adventists’ office of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty. “So any inconvenience of accommodation of religious practice is thereby enough to allow employers off the hook.”
The proposed Workplace Religious Freedom Act would provide greater protections but has languished in Congress for more than a decade, despite broad bipartisan support and support from an unusually diverse range of religious groups.
Even so, America also has some of the world’s most robust religious freedom laws.
Wearing an Islamic headscarf, or hijab, might be prohibited in French schools or Turkish government buildings, but they are permitted in U.S. public institutions. Now religious minorities are exploring which other aspects of their faiths they’re entitled to bring to work with them under the protection of the First Amendment.
Legal teams have coalesced in recent years to help alleged victims of religious discrimination. Sikhs, for example, coalesced after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when many Sikh men were mistaken for Muslims.
Sikhs now have access to a group of about a dozen Sikh lawyers who work to defend Sikhs’ rights to wear religiously mandated beards and turbans in the workplace, at airports and elsewhere.
Twenty some years ago, “Sikhs didn’t know how to respond to workplace discrimination, but now they do,” says Narinder Singh Kapany, chairman of the Sikh Foundation, an educational organization in Palo Alto, Calif.
Muslims have also mobilized support networks. CAIR, which operates offices in more than 30 cities across 19 states, has made workplace rights a top priority. That means resources are available for people like Maryam Abdi, a 17-year-old Somali immigrant who always wears a hijab in public.
Abdi, who lives in Eden Prairie, Minn., figured she was out of luck last summer when she applied for a cashier’s job at an Old Country Buffet. A manager told her that a hijab violated the restaurant’s dress code.
“I knew it was unfair, but they said (the headscarf) wasn’t the uniform, so I thought, `Maybe they’re right’,” Abdi says. “I didn’t know what to do about it.”
Then another Somali teen encouraged Abdi to contact a local CAIR chapter, which promptly intervened on her behalf. Within a few weeks, she was working the Old Country Buffet register in her hijab.
“Now a lot of Muslim girls out there know they can take a stand for their religion and their headscarves,” said Abdi, who ended up leaving the job when her family relocated to another town.
Despite rising numbers of claims, only a fraction — 7 percent in
2007 — conclude with an EEOC judgment. More than half of claims filed that year were deemed to be without merit. The rest resulted in a private settlement.
Despite relatively few judgments and a rising tide of employee assertiveness, advocates say they need to press on. Seventh-day Adventists have had a civil rights division since 1901, but the church estimates that an average of three Adventists lose their jobs every day in the U.S. on account of their Sabbath convictions, according to the denomination’s 2006-07 report on religious liberty.
By G. JEFFREY MacDONALD
2009 Religion News Service
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted January 28, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Unless your job is one that’s in the Fashion Industry what you wear shouldn’t matter. If a job requirement requires that you work on saturday and you are a Seven-Day Adventist don’t take a job where you are needed to be there on saturday. Likewise don’t hire a person who can’t work on saturday if that is when they are required to work. Seems like accepting would be cheaper then going to court. As far as praying, if they want a special room built for them that’s ridiculous. Go find a quiet corner and pray.
posted January 29, 2009 at 12:13 pm
There is no law that says any US business must hire Muslims…
If they keep making workplace demands that slow down production or incur legal costs, no good business owner will want to hire them.
Who wants to hire trouble??
posted January 29, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I think anyone who wants these kinds of religious accomodations (prayer breaks, special rooms, etc.) should be up front about it during the interview process. It’s a little underhanded to agree to work 8hrs/day, five days a week then turn around once all the paperwork is signed saying “Oh, by the way, I’ll need several extra breaks during the day, frequent unrestricted access to meeting rooms and my own personal dress code or else I’m going to sue you.”
Not that everyone should be forced to divulge their relgious affiliations, of course, but it would be the ethical thing to do if you’re going to make those demands of your employer on pain of litigation.
posted January 29, 2009 at 2:53 pm
swami wrote,
“There is no law that says any US business must hire Muslims…
If they keep making workplace demands that slow down production or incur legal costs, no good business owner will want to hire them.
Who wants to hire trouble??”
Now replace Muslims with “Jew”, “Unitarian”, or “Hindu”. How about French, Indian, or Eskimo? Why not left-handed, long-haired, or short in the same place. The argument does not even hold air, let alone water.
Thelemite wrote,
“Oh, by the way, I’ll need several extra breaks during the day, frequent unrestricted access” [to break areas]. (brackets are my own words)
This argument has been used by smokers for years. Does this mean employers should hire on non-smokers (which will also reduce insurance costs)?
Discrimination is not only a two edged sword, it is a cultural Cuisinart, chopping up all people into some sort of bland puree. We need to find ways to not merely allow, but encourage people to express themselves. This will offer peace of mind, peace in the workplace, and enhanced production in the long run.
posted January 29, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“This argument has been used by smokers for years. Does this mean employers should hire on non-smokers (which will also reduce insurance costs)?”
If smokers are a sue-happy group, that would certainly seem to be in the best interests of the employer, wouldn’t it?
I’m a smoker, and I would never dream of suing an employer if they didn’t jump through hoops to meet my smoking needs (and I would actually have an unpleasant physical reaction to not smoking, unlike a religious person who didn’t get a prayer in). If they didn’t already provide a location for me to smoke, I would go across the street, smoke in my car or just do it during my lunch break or after work. The point of what I wrote is that if I WAS going to make a stink about the matter, the ethical thing would be for me to bring it up during the interview process. If the employer is unwilling to accomodate my needs, I know that I will either have to look for work elsewhere or be more flexible (just as if they will not pay me the salary I require).
posted January 29, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“This argument has been used by smokers for years. Does this mean employers should hire on non-smokers (which will also reduce insurance costs)?”
If smokers are a sue-happy group, that would certainly seem to be in the best interests of the employer, wouldn’t it?
I’m a smoker, and I would never dream of suing an employer if they didn’t jump through hoops to meet my smoking needs (and I would actually have an unpleasant physical reaction to not smoking, unlike a religious person who didn’t get a prayer in). If they didn’t already provide a location for me to smoke, I would go across the street, smoke in my car or just do it during my lunch break or after work. The point of what I wrote is that if I WAS going to make a stink about the matter, the ethical thing would be for me to bring it up during the interview process. If the employer is unwilling to accomodate my needs, I know that I will either have to look for work elsewhere or be more flexible (just as if they will not pay me the salary I require).
posted January 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Bear in mind, I’m not saying business SHOULD discriminate or that people SHOULDN’T be allowed to express themselves – I’m just saying that the person that owns the company should have the right to decide how it runs & who works there, not the government. What can I say – I was raised in a capitalist society.
posted January 30, 2009 at 11:01 am
The truth of the matter is, Muslims working at any time of day would only need two five minute breaks to meet prayer needs. This is the equivalent of a bathroom break and can actually be merged with one, so we’re really only looking at ten minutes out of workday at most. Especially if there is a “safe space” to make the prayer.
As for not having an unpleasant physical reaction to missing a prayer, that’s an uninformed statement. Prayers are required and must be on time. The result is unpleasantness in the afterlife, sure, but many, like myself, have a visceral reaction to missing a prayer simply because I know what it means in the afterlife, and it’s important to me not to fail in the small tasks my Maker gives me.
Also, the concern of not being able to make it on time weighs heavily on my mind leaving me preoccupied, so I’m more functional if I know I’m going to make the prayer.
While I do think it would be best to make time stipulations in an interview, it’s still a bit unrealistic at this point to expect any level of comfort for people of faith to bring up their religion in an interview and say, “I need X based on it.” You have to step so lightly, and if you aren’t hired based on religious discrimination, it’s too hard to prove. You also don’t want people to hire you because they are afraid not to. In any career situation, you want a good fit.
posted January 31, 2009 at 6:50 am
The EEOC revised its guidelines in 2008 to benefit workers; you may see them at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html
The fundamental issue is we have freedom of religion in this country. It’s guaranteed by the First Amendment. People shouldn’t fear that their exercise of this basic right will cause them to lose a job.