[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          RELIGION ON THE JOB

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 12, 1994

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend to his 
colleagues the following editorial from the June 25, 1994, Washington 
Post, concerning the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 
guidelines on religious harassment.
  As the Post editorial makes clear, religious expression is one of our 
most fundamental rights. While they may have been well intentioned, the 
EEOC's guidelines are so broad and vague, that they will have the 
effect of stifling religious expression. For bureaucratic guidelines to 
infringe in any way on the right of an individual to express deeply 
held religious beliefs is unconscionable. The guidelines should be 
withdrawn.

               [From the Washington Post, June 25, 1994].

                          Religion on the Job

       When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently 
     published guidelines on harassment in the workplace, 100,000 
     people wrote in to protest. Objections were voiced by members 
     of Congress, representatives of many churches and the 
     American Civil Liberties Union, among others, The issue that 
     brought them together was religion, specifically, guidelines 
     on what constitutes discrimination in the workplace on the 
     basis of religion. The protesters are right. The proposed 
     guidelines are being rewritten.
       Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
     employment discrimination on grounds of religion, and 
     hundreds of cases making harassment claims are filed with the 
     EEOC each year. In some cases, religious people are hassled 
     by co-workers or denied promotions by bosses who object to 
     their faith. On occasion, jokes teasing and critical comments 
     directed at a worker's religion reach the level where the job 
     site becomes a hostile environment. These are legitimate 
     grievances that the EEOC must address and correct.
       A more complicated problem arises, however, when a 
     nonbeliever, for example, is offended by a co-worker's 
     religious comments, practices or even the clothing or jewelry 
     another wears for religious reasons. That certainly does not 
     amount to harassment of the nonbeliever on religious grounds.
       The guidelines published by the EEOC are advisory only. But 
     they are so vague and broad as to create the impression that 
     employers wishing to avoid liability are well advised to keep 
     the workplace entirely free of religious objects, discussions 
     or practices. Some employers have already interpreted the 
     guidelines as requiring them to prohibit employees from 
     wearing crosses or Stars of David, hanging religious 
     calendars, keeping Bibles at their desks, discussing religion 
     or bringing any sign of their faith to the job site. In 
     acting to protect the nonbeliever from possible offense, the 
     EEOC has overlooked the rights of the religious to freely 
     express their beliefs in ways that do not disrupt the 
     workplace.
       It is not the purpose of the law to protect workers from 
     every word or deed they might find offensive. Individuals 
     should be free to wear religious medals, paste prayers inside 
     their locker doors, say grace in the cafeteria and refer to 
     religious belief in conversation or at company meetings. This 
     is protected conduct whether or not it may make some other 
     person uncomfortable or be thought offensive by someone. The 
     EEOC needs to provide a much tighter definition of harassment 
     of religious grounds.

                          ____________________