By Sheeva J. Ghassemi
The National Law Journal

Due to the ever-increasing number of practicing Muslims in the United States, employers have been forced to confront Islam and the challenges it presents in the workplace. Muslim employees have begun requesting, and in certain circumstances demanding, that they be allowed to practice their religion at work. The practice of Islam can present unique legal and financial obstacles for employers that include wearing head coverings, praying, growing facial hair and dietary restrictions.

Many Muslim women choose to wear head coverings as a symbol of their faith. In EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006), Alamo terminated Muslim employee Bilan Nur for wearing a head covering at work during Ramadan. Alamo maintained a “Dress Smart Policy” that prohibited wearing any article of clothing not specifically approved in the policy.

A few days after the start of Ramadan, Nur requested permission to wear a head covering during the holy month. Alamo informed Nur that she could wear the head covering while working in the back of the office, but not while working at the rental counter. Shortly thereafter, Nur wore her head covering to work for three days in a row. Nur received several verbal and written warnings and was eventually suspended. Upon her return to work, Alamo terminated Nur for violating the dress policy. On behalf of Nur, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Alamo for religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Alamo argued that it made a good-faith attempt to accommodate Nur by allowing her to wear the head covering while working in the back of the office but requiring that she remove it while working at the rental counter. The court held that Alamo had failed to accommodate Nur because she was required to work at the rental counter during Ramadan without her head covering.

Additionally, Alamo argued that it would suffer undue hardship, as acceding to Nur’s request would open the floodgates for other employees to request deviations from the dress policy. The court noted: “ ’Undue hardship’ is created when an accommodation ‘results in more than a de minimis cost to the employer.’ ” Id. at 1014-1015 (citations omitted). Furthermore, the court said that undue hardship cannot be proven by asserting “conceivable or hypothetical hardships.” Id. at 1015 (citations omitted).

The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the EEOC, holding that allowing Nur to wear a head covering while working at the rental counter would not cause undue hardship because there was only the possibility that other employees would request deviations from the dress policy.

An additional challenge in the workplace involves praying, as Muslims are required to pray five times throughout each day. Similarly, providing a place for Muslims to perform ablution, the religious washing of the feet, hands and face in preparation for prayer, can impose major costs.

A SPACE FOR ABLUTION

In Tyson v. Clarian Health Partners Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13973 (S.D. Ind. June 17, 2004), Clarian terminated Muslim employee Fatou Tyson, in part for performing ablution in the shower of an empty patient room. Tyson’s supervisor observed this and interpreted her actions as showering in a patient room, a violation of hospital policy. Accordingly, Tyson’s supervisor reported her behavior despite Tyson’s explanation about her religious motivation.

. . . Click Here to read the complete article .

Tags: EEOC, Hijab, Muslim, Muslim Women, Ramadan, United States, Workplace

Short URL: http://tinyurl.com/ykcu7kq