The First Amendment and the Workplace

[Brass Bell Doll]

My friend has consecrated jewelry that was earned in a ritual. To remove it is a dishonor. Unfortunately it violates the company dress code, so I am trying to help him get an exemption that will allow him to wear the pieces at work.

It isn't a safety issue, and they haven't said anything for the last two years- but all of a sudden with a new manager it's an issue.  

[Aakosir]

Gotta love new managers who have to go by the book... The manager will eventually not care. Happens at my work place all the time, but then again it's not that great of a place to begin with. Not sure what else I can say though.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

I'm in contact with the EEOC. There is already some case law and I feel that they are trying to work with him in upper management.

I think there are two main issues here. The first is sincerity of belief, and the second is if the accommodation will cause undue hardship for the company. Since he has worn the jewelry for years without an issue and it isn't considered a safety hazard, I think they won't be able to say it is an undue hardship to let him wear the jewelry.

The question then becomes a matter of sincerity of belief. Because he is a solitary pagan who occasionally practices with people who do not hold his same faith, it may be difficult to prove that this is part of his religion. I hope the EEOC may provide some kind of standard I could replicate for his work on his behalf.  

[Aakosir]

It is sad how people do not take in to consideration people's different beliefs. I feel like you must be christian to be accepted. I hope you do find something that will help him. I do not understand why he would have to take it off if it is not a hazard of any sort. It makes no sense to me.  

[ncsweet]

A few articles that might point you in the right direction...

Quote:

The EEOC and the courts have consistently considered religious harassment to be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They have also stated that an employer has an affirmative duty to maintain a workplace free from religious harassment. Liability may be imposed on an employer when it knew or should have known of the harassment, or even without employer knowledge if a supervisor was involved.

In addition, employees have brought cases under the first amendment, the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Constitution, as well as under state fair employment practice statutes, and under tort theories such as assault, infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy...

Handling Religious Expression In The Workplace

Quote:

Religious expression in the public workplace has become a contentious issue. Public employees claim they have a free-speech or free-exercise of religion right to express their religious beliefs on the job, often through speaking about their faith to other employees or wearing religious clothing or garb. Employers counter that they can prohibit such religious expression in order to prevent disruption and to avoid establishment-clause problems...
Workplace Religious Liberty

Guidelines on Religious Freedom and Religious Expression in the Workplace - from a HR resource site

This one is more Government Employees related, but might be helpful as well.
________

Quote:

The question then becomes a matter of sincerity of belief. Because he is a solitary pagan who occasionally practices with people who do not hold his same faith, it may be difficult to prove that this is part of his religion.

Do Christians, Muslims, etc... have to prove that something is part of their religion - if presented with the same circumstances? To make him prove such a thing, would border on discrimination.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Aakosir

It is sad how people do not take in to consideration people's different beliefs. I feel like you must be christian to be accepted.

That has not been my experience. I feel often corporate policy is written with the majority in mind- it makes sense that when you make a policy it should be made to fit the largest number of people- and that there is an attempt afterward to catch up with the people who slip through the cracks.

When I was in high school, this was explained as the basis of our government- that Legislators make the law, and that the Judaical branch in turn applies it and interprets it so it can be fairly applied to those who the law did not initially consider. Because of this, our legal system is very complex, but it also allows for the unique circumstances to be taken into consideration.

Aakosir

I hope you do find something that will help him.

I hit a bit of a brick wall with the EEOC. There are no standards for establishing his sincerity of faith- so he would have to file a case with them for him to get their help. I was hoping we could be proactive, but it isn't an option.

Aakosir

I do not understand why he would have to take it off if it is not a hazard of any sort. It makes no sense to me.

I feel companies have a right to determine how their Brand Image is represented by their employees. It's about marketing. This is why many companies have uniforms and dress codes- but these expectations do not extend to discrimination against what is known under the law as "protected classes". Religion being a protected class, he has the legal right to wear them. If he simply wanted to wear them because he liked the way he looked with it- he would not have that same protection.

ncsweet

A few articles that might point you in the right direction...

Quote:

The EEOC and the courts have consistently considered religious harassment to be unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They have also stated that an employer has an affirmative duty to maintain a workplace free from religious harassment. Liability may be imposed on an employer when it knew or should have known of the harassment, or even without employer knowledge if a supervisor was involved.

In addition, employees have brought cases under the first amendment, the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Constitution, as well as under state fair employment practice statutes, and under tort theories such as assault, infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy...

Handling Religious Expression In The Workplace

I like this one. It deals with paganism and body modification directly- which is what his violation is considered because of where his jewelry is placed.

ncsweet

Do Christians, Muslims, etc... have to prove that something is part of their religion - if presented with the same circumstances? To make him prove such a thing, would border on discrimination.

They would have to provide proof as well, yes.  

[Aakosir]

Brass Bell Doll

Aakosir

It is sad how people do not take in to consideration people's different beliefs. I feel like you must be christian to be accepted.

That has not been my experience. I feel often corporate policy is written with the majority in mind- it makes sense that when you make a policy it should be made to fit the largest number of people- and that there is an attempt afterward to catch up with the people who slip through the cracks.

When I was in high school, this was explained as the basis of our government- that Legislators make the law, and that the Judaical branch in turn applies it and interprets it so it can be fairly applied to those who the law did not initially consider. Because of this, our legal system is very complex, but it also allows for the unique circumstances to be taken into consideration.

I'm not too great with legislation and governemt so I don't really follow all the legal aspects involved with laws. That's just how it feels to me. But I must say it is changing considering how many immegrants the US is getting.

Brass Bell Doll

Aakosir

I do not understand why he would have to take it off if it is not a hazard of any sort. It makes no sense to me.

I feel companies have a right to determine how their Brand Image is represented by their employees. It's about marketing. This is why many companies have uniforms and dress codes- but these expectations do not extend to discrimination against what is known under the law as "protected classes". Religion being a protected class, he has the legal right to wear them. If he simply wanted to wear them because he liked the way he looked with it- he would not have that same protection.

True. You do not want a spokeperson with grunge advertising for medical practices. I was watching Trauma: Life in the ER and one of the doctors was wearing a very low cut Y neck and his chest hair was spilling out. *cringes* I hope he put a hair net on that before he went in to the OR.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Aakosir

I'm not too great with legislation and governemt so I don't really follow all the legal aspects involved with laws. That's just how it feels to me. But I must say it is changing considering how many immegrants the US is getting.

Our government was founded on immigrants and their decedents.

Aakosir

True. You do not want a spokeperson with grunge advertising for medical practices. I was watching Trauma: Life in the ER and one of the doctors was wearing a very low cut Y neck and his chest hair was spilling out. *cringes* I hope he put a hair net on that before he went in to the OR.

If we are concerned about body hair to that extent, would you ask people to knox their eyebrows and eyelashes?  

[Shearaha]

Brass Bell Doll

Aakosir

True. You do not want a spokeperson with grunge advertising for medical practices. I was watching Trauma: Life in the ER and one of the doctors was wearing a very low cut Y neck and his chest hair was spilling out. *cringes* I hope he put a hair net on that before he went in to the OR.

If we are concerned about body hair to that extent, would you ask people to knox their eyebrows and eyelashes?

Depending on the surgery this is already required. Most neuro-surgery requires that all body hair be covered or geled over. At least where I work it is.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Shearaha

Depending on the surgery this is already required. Most neuro-surgery requires that all body hair be covered or geled over. At least where I work it is.

I was glib. I apologize. I was attempting to illustrate that hair is hair, and that having an intense reaction to chest hair is not rational unless it is extended to other forms of hair.  

[Yanueh]

The first amendment applies to the government, not civilian-owned businesses.  

[kage no neko]

I think it'd be okay if they make sure no employees at all are allowed to wear religious stuff, that it's not favoring one religion.
If it's like a necklace or something, why not tuck it into his shirt? It's what my boyfriend does. If it's a ring, I think it'd be just silly to say "you can't wear that", unless you're also going to say that to people who are married. I'm not sure about something like a bracelet though.  

[Yanueh]

kage no neko

I think it'd be okay if they make sure no employees at all are allowed to wear religious stuff, that it's not favoring one religion.

The First Amendment only applies to the government. Not to you, not to me, and not to business owners.

If the OP wants to find out what is or isn't legally allowed, she'd have to find out which anti-discrimination laws apply to her state.  

[kage no neko]

Yanueh

kage no neko

I think it'd be okay if they make sure no employees at all are allowed to wear religious stuff, that it's not favoring one religion.

The First Amendment only applies to the government. Not to you, not to me, and not to business owners.

If the OP wants to find out what is or isn't legally allowed, she'd have to find out which anti-discrimination laws apply to her state.

Why would it apply only to the government?