By now everyone knows that employers have a duty under Title VII to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. Just how far this duty goes, though, is subject to debate.
On September 21, 2009, Jon Hyman blogged about this duty in the context of a recent lawsuit filed by the EEOC against the retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch. According to the EEOC’s press release, Abercrombie & Fitch refused to hire a 17-year old Muslim because she wore a hijab to her interview, which was inconsistent with the store’s “Look Policy.” Jon Hyman’s take on the case is that the EEOC will have a difficult time proving discrimination. But I see it differently.
To me this case seems a lot like a recent EEOC case against Grand Central Partnership (GCP) in New York. The EEOC accused GCP of discrimination against four employees who observed the Rastafarian religion. The employees sought an exception to GCP’s grooming policy, which prohibited employees from wearing their hair outside their uniform hats. The employees sought an accommodation for their long dreadlocks and short beards, which they claimed were part of their religious observance. The case was settled on August 7, 2009, with GCP agreeing to permit the accommodation and also paying the employees for the alleged discrimination.
It is true that we do not know how a court would have ruled in the GCP matter, as it was settled. But a few things are clear. First, the EEOC is actively pursuing cases of what it considers an illegal failure to accommodate religious beliefs. Second, employers should make decisions about the duty to accommodate carefully, and with the advice of counsel. Finally, employers should make sure they take the time to train their managers on their responsibilities under Title VII.
[...] based on its failure to hire a young woman who wore a hijab, a religious headscarf. (We blogged about this case, the outcome of which is as of yet unknown). [...]