One of the purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is to enable individuals with discrimination claims based on religious beliefs or practices to get relief from courts against their employers. One of the groups protected under the Act are religious groups. Section 2000e (s. 701) of the Act defines “religion” to mean an employee’s religious practices or observances or beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also aims to ensure equal employment opportunities in the US and hence prohibits any discrimination based on any ground including religious beliefs and practices. Title VII, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e prohibits employers from discriminating employees based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. An employer or employment agency under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also has a duty to accommodate all reasonably held religious beliefs, practices and observances by the employee unless this would result in undue hardship to them as was affirmed in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977).
Further, according to the Hayter (2015), may mean such practices as flexible work schedules in terms of arrival and departure from work, and giving employees permission to observe religious practices and make up for that time at their own convenience. Other reasonable religious accommodations may include leave to employees for religious observances, provision of time and place for employees to pray or observe a religious practice and belief, permit employee to wear their religious attire such as garbs, accommodation of particular grooming habits or hairstyles that are required by religious belief or practice and honoring an employee’s dietary requirements and observance of the Sabbath. According to Little (2011), however, an employer need not provide accommodation if the provision thereof would result in de minimis cost as was held in Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook. Melling (2015) on the other hand argues that it is difficult to ascertain the extent of hardship caused to the employer in cases where religious practices or belief and an employer’s commercial interests collide.
Orthodox Jews
Examples of the religious practices of individual employees who profess this religious faith that can reasonably be accommodated without undue hardship to the management may include observance of the Saturday as the Sabbath Day of Worship and wearing of religious garbs such as wearing of yarmulkes. These practices would normally not cause an employer unnecessary hardship son long as they are practiced only within the confines of decency required of an employee at the workplace. The management can allow the employee to work four-day work-week or work at different hours so long as it does not cause them losses.
Hindu
The Hindu faithful have a number of religious practices that can sometimes prove difficult for an employer to reasonably accommodate but other Hindu practices can be accommodated. Examples of such practices that can be accommodated without hardship to the management include observance of the worship times and rituals and putting on of garments unique to the Hindu religion (Ruan, 2008). Ruan argues that as long as such religious practices are respectful and reasonable, they should be accommodated.
The Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints
The practices of employees professing this faith that can be reasonably accommodated include the observance of religious ceremonies, prohibition on eating certain kinds of food and belief in the carrying the Bible to the workplace.
References
Hayter, u. M. (2015). To end divisions: Reflections on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest, 18(4), 499-514.
Littlle, A. (2011). Title VII religious accommodation: An evidentiary appraoch to the undue hardship standard under Trans World Airlines v Hardison. Southern Law Journal, 21, 226-251.
Melling, L. (2015). Religious refusals to public accommodation laws: Four reasons to say no. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 38, 177-192.
Ruan, N. (2008). Accommodating respectful religious expression in the workplace. Marquette Law Review, 92(1), 1-29.
