RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

Religious Discrimination

Religious Discrimination

Introduction

Americans have long considered freedom of religious expression an important right. However, the right to be free of religious dominance is also highly valued, as reflected in the constitutional separation of church and state. Those two principles have recently come into conflict in the debate over religious conduct in the workplace. Religious employees have sought to take off holidays and generally conduct themselves in accordance with their beliefs, such as how they dress or wear their hair. Employers, meanwhile, have at times resisted accommodating them for fear of adverse effects on workplace morale and well-being.

Civil rights legislation in the 1970s established that employers must make accommodations for the religious beliefs of their employees, except in cases where it would cause them "undue hardship" to do so. In a 1977 decision, the Supreme Court defined undue hardship as anything more than a minimal cost. Since then, many advocates of religious freedom have complained that it is too easy for employers to avoid accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of their employees.

At the same time, a number of factors have combined to intensify the debate over the issue. Since the 1980s, Christian activism has increased as a social and political force. In addition, spiritual retreats, religious counseling and prayer groups have become more common to business culture. And religious diversity has been increasing as well, with immigrant workers bringing non-Christian religious traditions with them into the workplace. Religious groups, civil-rights groups and a number of politicians have called for legislation that would strengthen the rights of employees to practice their beliefs at work. A bill currently being debated in Congress, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA), would change the relatively minimal "undue hardship" that an employer must demonstrate in order to be exempted from accommodating an employee's religious practices. Under the new law, an employer could avoid accommodating the employee only if doing so would create "significant difficulty or expense." That change would give employees more religious freedom in the workplace.

However, not everyone favors the proposed legislation. Critics say that employers would have too hard a time controlling religion in their places of business. That could allow behavior that could hurt profits, they argue. Critics add that, in some cases, employees motivated by religious beliefs have refused to serve certain customers or perform vital functions that contradicted their faith, and that the legislation would strengthen their ability to do so. And employers would find it more difficult to curtail behavior offensive to other employees, including those of minority faiths. Supporters of the legislation counter that there is currently too little protection for the rights of religious employees; more should be done to prevent religious discrimination in the workplace. The current definition of undue hardship makes it easy for employers to refuse accommodation.

Discussion

The main objective of human resource professionals is to provide internal customers, which include management, line managers, managers and staff. The following services include all aspects of personnel management: human resource planning, recruitment and selection, staff development, employee compensation, ...