BUSINESS LAW 101
Civil Rights Act- Religion
This week’s column continues the discussion of the Civil Rights Act protected categories.
Religion is another protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Employers must attempt to respect and permit their employees’ religious beliefs and practices and attempt to accommodate those practices.
If the employer cannot reasonably accommodate the employees’ religious beliefs, the employer may then require the employee to violate his religious practices without violating the Act. If an employee’s religion requires that he not work on Sunday (or Saturday), the employer must try to accommodate him. If the employer cannot find another person to work the shift, the employee may be required to work that day, despite his religious belief, and the employer will not have violated the Act.
The religious beliefs of the employee must be valid. If the employee creates a religion such as the “Church of Bob” to keep from working on Friday and Saturday nights, the employer need not make an attempt to accommodate the belief. This is a dangerous area, however, as the employer may not know which religions are legitimate and which are not or what religious practices are bona fide tenets of the religious faith.
The employer must often find ways to protect an employee’s religious beliefs without offending the beliefs or feelings of others. Several years ago, an employee claimed her religion required her to wear an anti‑abortion button. The button contained a picture of a fetus, which was offensive to other employees. The court fashioned a compromise between the religious beliefs and the rights of her co‑workers. They found that indeed the belief required that she wear the button, but not that the button be visible. Therefore, the employee could wear the button on her undergarments or on the inside of her clothing. By doing this, she wouldn’t be violating her religious beliefs nor would she be offending her co‑workers.
Another issue that arises is preaching. Some religions require their followers to recruit or convert others. This is often offensive to co-workers. The employer is allowed to have a blanket rule that employees may not talk about non‑work issues. However if employees are allowed to discuss other lifestyle issues, such as sports, they must also allow discussion of religion. Whether an employer can stop extensive preaching is unclear. The courts have not given a decisive answer. The key questions to ask are the frequency of the preaching, the severity, whether it was physically threatening, intimidating or humiliating and whether it unreasonably interfered with work performance.
Other examples of how the Civil Rights Act affects religious beliefs: Sanitary reasons may allow a restaurant to forbid cooks from having facial hair, even though required by their religion. Allowing employees to pray at work generally does not impose an undue hardship on the employer (however, the prayer may not interfere with the work being done).
Just as employers need to respect employees religious beliefs, the employer may not harass an employee for their beliefs. Certain religious discrimination is exempt from the Act. Religious schools may limit teaching applicants to teachers that belong to their particular religion. Also, churches may hire strictly from their belief group for church related jobs.
Al Kelley is a Florida business law attorney located in Key West and previously taught business law, personnel law and labor law at St. Leo University. He is also the author of “Basics of Business Law” and “Basics of Florida’s Small Claims Court” (Absolutely Amazing e-Books). This article is being offered as a public service and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about legal issues, you should confer with a licensed Florida attorney.
[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]
With regard to the prohibition of feeding the homeless in Ft. Lauderdale, is this not an infringement on most religious beliefs that teach charity and compassion for the needy? It’s bad enough that a large part of our society is indifferent to the plight of the less fortunate but I am appalled that it has now become LAW that we be that way. To me, the callous measures taken by the city of Ft. Lauderdale are in direct contradiction to the American values we hold dear and the foundation on which this country was built. To me, it’s downright unconstitutional and highly offensive to me. I will neither visit not spend spend a tourist dime in the city of Ft. Lauderdale who obviously finds it easier to simply legislate away their uncomfortable problems.