Introduction
The modern workplace environment is full of performance-based demands that are contributing to an increase in cases of religious conflicts between employers and employees. Consequently, modern workers are constantly making requests and demands based on their religions of choice thereby contributing to human resource conflicts. For instance, the current breed of employees often skips work to attend to religious commitments. Therefore, it is important for the human resource managers to come up with ways of addressing religious requests in relation to the current labor laws. The First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution gives employees several rights in the workplace irrespective of their employers’ wishes.
The rights of employees in the modern workplace include but are not limited to discussing their religion with coworkers, wearing clothes that accentuate their religious beliefs, and adorning their work environments with materials that express their religion. However, employers grapple with the issue of how they can accommodate their employees’ religious freedoms without contravening labor laws. It is also possible for employees’ requests to interfere with the rights of the employers in respect to labor laws. For instance, some religious requests can have a significant negative impact on a company’s productivity.
Chapter seven “of the Civil Rights Act cautions employees against being discriminated on” (Henle and Hogler 159). However, there is debate as to what amounts to religious discrimination where employee requests are concerned. It is also important to note that the current operation mode where businesses operate on a 24/7 basis clashes with a number of religious practices. This paper seeks to explore how religious practices and beliefs affect decisions in human resource management. In addition, the paper explores ways of minimizing instances of conflict between employees and employers in relation to religious beliefs and conflicts.
Labor Laws
According to basic human resource management, it is against the law to discriminate against employees because of their religion. Consequently, Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifies that “an employer may not…discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation…privileges of employment because of…religion” (Henle and Hogler 159). The same legislation explains what the term ‘religion’ refers to and this includes all forms of religious ‘observances, beliefs, and practices’.
However, an employer can be exempted from the blame of religion-based discrimination if he/she is able to demonstrate that it is impossible to accommodate the religious practices of an employee without interfering with the business proceedings of an organization. On the other hand, labor laws stipulate that “it is an unlawful employment practice…for an employer not to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship…for the religious practices of employees and prospective employees” (Joggerst 1587).
It is possible for an employee to seek legal redress if he/she is punished for following the interests of his/her religion. Consequently, an employer has to be able to defend his/her actions by proving that the actions of an employee cause undue hardship to his/her business. The Civil Act of 1964 defines religion as ‘all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief’ (Henle and Hogler 160). Therefore, individuals who practice what might be considered as unconventional religions are adequately covered by this law.
Nevertheless, in past incidences courts have found that some religious practices might be held by their adherents in bad faith. In addition, for religious practices to be considered ‘sincere’, their believers do not have to belong to a sect or a religious grouping. It is apparent that most religion-based conflicts in human resource management involve observance of certain holidays and Sabbaths.
However, the benefits of Chapter VII of the discrimination legislation extend to include other practices such as modes of dressing and maintenance of physical appearances. Although the employer is required by law to observe the religious beliefs and practices of his/her employees, the law also allows him/her to forego the accommodation of religious practices if they tend to introduce undue hardships to his/her business.
Accommodation of Employees’ Religions
The issue of accommodating religious practices has been tricky for human resource managers. Consequently, extensive research on the issue of religious accommodation has been conducted with the view of exploring its limits and boundaries. The issue of accommodating employees’ religious practices has also been compounded by the fact that the modern workplace is vast and diverse (Nigosian 49). Therefore, human resource managers are required “to accommodate different religious practices, customs, and beliefs” (Cash and Gray 128).
However, the employee has to achieve several thresholds for his/her religious practices to be honored by the employer. For instance, an employee must prove to the human resource management that a certain religious practice or belief is in conflict with certain work requirements. Furthermore, the human resource department has to be notified about the ensuing conflict between religious practices and work-based requirements. Finally, the employee must be able to prove that a certain work requirement is forcing him/her to abandon important religious practices.
Accommodating an employee’s religion goes beyond ‘known’ and ‘recognizable’ religious beliefs and practices. An employee can also request the human resource management to accommodate a practice that he/she considers contradictory to his/her moral code. Human resource organizations often find it hard to define the terms ‘undue hardships’ and ‘reasonable accommodation’ when dealing with the issue of religious accommodation. Research indicates that lower and higher courts have often differed during their rulings on religious freedoms.
However, there are obvious examples of what might constitute reasonable accommodation in the course of human resource management. For example, changing job assignments, altering employees’ shift schedules, and offering part-time work to employees qualifies as ‘reasonable accommodation’. Only an employer is in a position to justify reasonable accommodation. This scenario implies that only ‘undue hardship’ on the side of the employer matters. In addition, analysts have argued that what might be ‘reasonable’ to one party might not be ‘reasonable’ to another.
Further research into the quagmire indicates that valid employee accommodation only requires a minimum effort on the side of the employer. Therefore, an employee is not at liberty to make ‘demands’ to the human resource department in respect to religious freedom (Henle and Hogler 163). In addition, in the past the Supreme Court has ruled that “the employer is only required to offer some form of accommodation to the employee, and if it is sufficient, it resolves the dilemma of religious freedom” (Bou‐Habib 110).
The main reason why human resource departments are hesitant to honor employee religious requests is because granting them might lead other employees to take advantage of this favoritism. Accommodating religious freedoms can also prompt other legal hurdles such as discrimination, harassment, and favoritism. In other instances, an employee can end up feeling proselytized by a colleague who claims to be exercising his/her religious freedoms.
Religious Practices
Most conflicts involving religious freedom and labor law often end up in a court of law. Most of these court cases often require judges and magistrates to interpret contents of the First Amendment and Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act.
There are various forms of applications of religious freedoms and labor laws in modern human resource management. Some of these applications include employees requesting not to work on Sundays, employees requesting to use some conference facilities for prayer meetings, employees requesting not to wear uniforms that they consider provocative, and employees having visible religious materials in their work environments.
An example of a case that touched on religious practices in the workplace involves an employee who discussed his/her religious beliefs with clients. In a 2002 incident involving an employee and a public employer, religious freedom was defined by the court. Mr. Larry had complained to the court that his religious freedom was infringed on when he was prohibited from discussing religion with clients. In addition, Larry claimed that his employer prohibited him from using the conference hall for prayer meetings.
The court was also told that Mr. Larry was told to keep his bible hidden from view and to take down religious pamphlets that were displayed in his cubicle. The court ruled that Mr. Larry was at liberty to use the conference hall to conduct voluntary prayer meetings. According to the court ruling, Mr. Larry was within his religious rights to hold prayer meetings as long as those in attendance did so voluntarily. However, the court ruled that Larry could not discuss religion with his clients. According to the court, any legal ramifications of Mr. Larry’s opinionated religion-based discussions would fall on his employer.
On the last issue, the court ruled that displaying religious materials implied that the employer endorsed Mr. Larry’s religion and this was misleading. The issues surrounding Larry’s scenario are common during the management of human resources. Consequently, human resource professionals should take note of Mr. Larry’s scenario.
Another common issue in religious freedom and labor laws is requesting time off to attend prayer and worship services. For example, in a case that was filed in the State of New York by an employee of Home Depot, the issue of taking time off work to attend church services was addressed (Bou‐Habib 110). In the conflict, the employee was fired after refusing to report to work on two consecutive Sundays. This happened even after the employee declined Home Depot’s offer to allow him/her to work only on Sunday evening or to take up part-time work.
The lower court found that the employee’s religious freedoms were accommodated while the court of appeal ruled that the accommodations that were offered to the employee were not ‘reasonable’. This scenario reflects the complexities that are faced by human resource professionals while they are making decisions concerning religious accommodations relative to labor laws.
Conclusion
It is important for human resource professionals to find viable accommodations to cater to employees’ religion-based requests. Employers need to be in a position to accommodate religious freedoms of their employees as long as doing so does not interfere with the rights of others. It is not easy for human resource professionals to address the rights of employees without invoking other inconsistencies such as harassment and favoritism. Therefore, decisions about religious freedoms and labor laws should reflect the views of the whole organization and not only those of human resource officers.
Works Cited
Bou‐Habib, Paul. “A theory of religious accommodation.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 23.1 (2006): 109-126. Print.
Cash, Karen C., and George Gray. “A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace.” The Academy of Management Executive 14.3 (2000): 124-133. Print.
Henle, Christine, and Raymond Hogler. “The duty of accommodation and the workplace religious freedom act of 2003: From bad policy to worse law.” Labor Law Journal 55.3 (2004): 155-165. Print.
Joggerst, Bryan. “Reasonable Accommodation of Mixed Motives Claims under the ADA: Consistent, Congruent, and Necessary.” Cardozo Law Review 35.1 (2013): 1587. Print.
Nigosian, Solomon. World Religions: A Historical Approach, New York: Bedford, 2000. Print.