Accommodation for Religious Beliefs

There has been some immediate fallout from the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.  The decision has become a lightning rod for several Republican candidates who have denounced the decision on religious grounds.  Some, such as Ben Carson, have suggested that Congress pass a law protecting people’s religious views.  Of

Way back on July 29, 2011 we wrote that an Oklahoma jury had awarded $20,000 in damages to a devout Muslim job applicant refused hiring by Abercrombie & Fitch when she appeared for an interview wearing a headscarf, or hijab, which she wore for religious reasons.  Abercrombie & Fitch argued that it has what it

Discrimination based upon religion is in the news, we said on August 24th, after the EEOC sued a Food Lion store in North Carolina for refusing to accommodate, and firing, an employee who is a Jehovah’s Witness.

The EEOC has just filed three new Title VII lawsuits based upon religious discrimination, with two involving the

The EEOC has just announced a new lawsuit on what has become a familiar topic – the alleged refusal of an employer, an Alabama nursing home, to accommodate a Muslim employee whose religious beliefs require her to wear a hijab, or head covering.   These religious discrimination cases relating to appearance are now almost cookie cutter

Tattoos, body piercings, dreadlocks – can an employer prohibit such bodily adornments?  Can an employer require a “look policy?”

Depends.

We just read about a woman in Edmonton, Canada who has 22 visible body piercings and claims that employer dress codes discriminate against her, and that “one prospective employer threw out her résumé in front

347125_sOn November 2, 2012, we reported that a federal court in Michigan had enjoined the application of the rule of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) that would have required a “secular, for-profit, family owned and operated corporation” owned by a practicing Catholic to provide employee health insurance that covers contraception.

The

In our post of March 7th we said that “employment decisions based upon tattoos, certain headwear or other garb, and grooming habits may, in fact, run afoul of Title VII’s prohibiition against religious discrimination. How, you ask? Certain religions may require their adherents to conform to certain appearances, either clothing, body decoration or certain

26135611_sWe have often written that tattoos, certain headwear or other garb, and grooming habits, are not per se covered by Title VII.  That is, an employer can reject for hiring or otherwise discriminate against any person the basis of the above criteria.

Indeed, we just wrote (on March 2nd) about “lookism” or “beauty bias,” and