New Law Pertaining to an Employer's Duty to Accommodate Religious Practices

Article authored by David P.E. Burkett

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act protects the rights of applicants and employees to be free from discrimination or harassment on the basis of religion. The FEHA also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of an individual unless the accommodation would be an undue hardship on the employer.

Typical examples of requests for accommodation include allowing employees to observe religious holidays or adjust their schedules to attend prayer services during work hours.  But what about allowing employees to wear religious attire, such as turbans, in the work place? California employers have seen an increase in religious discrimination lawsuits, particularly among followers of the Sikh and Islam faiths, who claim that they are being discriminated against for observing religious dress and grooming practices required by their religion.  One such case involved a Sikh man who was denied a job at Folsom State Prison because of his beard and turban. That case was eventually settled by giving the applicant a managerial position and making an exception to policy.  However, the prison retained its policy that all employees had to be clean shaven.  To address such cases, Governor Brown signed the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2013.

New Law Governing Religious Dress and Grooming

The Act increases protection for employees who wear religiously mandated clothing and hairstyles in the workplace, such as a turban or hijab.  It broadens the definition of “religious creed,” “religion,” “religious observance,” “religious belief” and “creed” to include “all aspects of religious belief, observance and practice, including religious dress and grooming practices.” Religious dress and grooming practices are “construed broadly to include the wearing or carrying of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, artifacts, and any other item that is part of the observance by an individual of his or her religious creed” and “all forms of head, facial and body hair that are part of the observance by an individual of his or her religious creed.”

The Act also expands the definition of “undue hardship.” Current law allows employers to claim undue hardship where accommodation of an employee’s religious beliefs and practices would minimally interrupt the course of business.  A “minimal interruption” could be construed as other employees or customers taking offense to a particular religious dress or grooming practice. That view of minimal interruption might have allowed an employer to separate a religiously-attired employee from others, by perhaps putting him or her in the back office away from the public.  The Workplace Religious Freedom Act makes it more difficult for employers to claim “undue hardship.” Specifically, the Act states that “an accommodation of an individual’s religious dress practice or religious grooming practice is not reasonable if the accommodation requires segregation of the individual from other employees or the public.”

Accommodating an Employee’s Religious Practice

Employers should recognize that any religious belief or religious practice sincerely held by one of their employees is protected.  Even non-traditional religious beliefs and practices are protected.  Dress codes and personal appearance standards may need to be modified to accommodate the religious dress or grooming practices of an employee.  For example, a personal appearance standard requiring employees to be clean shaven likely would need to be modified to allow an employee to wear a beard as part of a religious practice.  Dress codes banning hats or other headwear also likely need modification to ensure that employees are allowed to follow their religious dress practice.  Employers will need to be open to modifying their policies to accommodate religious dress and practice as required by the new Workplace Religious Freedom Act.

The new law can be found in Government Code section 12926 (p).

Previous
Previous

Derivative Lawsuits: What Directors, Officers and Shareholders Need to Know

Next
Next

Employers May Be Able To Prevent Class-Action Lawsuits By Including Waiver Of Those Claims In Arbitration Provisions