[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 65 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE

                                 ______


                        HON. ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 9, 1996

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the interest of bringing to 
your attention the issue of religious discrimination in employment. It 
is my pleasure to represent a district which is rich with diverse 
religions and great religious institutions. The December 1995 issue of 
Meat & Poultry, included an excellent article in the Labor Report 
entitled ``Honor Thy Neighbor,'' by Richard Alaniz. I bring this 
article to the attention of my colleagues and urge them to read it and 
to stand for religious accommodations in the workplace in accordance 
with the Civil Rights Act.

       Years of publicity and high profile litigation have made 
     most employers aware of the various state and federal laws 
     prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, disability and 
     age. What many employers don't know is that Title VII, the 
     primary federal anti-discrimination law, also prohibits 
     discrimination based on religion.
       Due to a lack of complaints and perhaps a general 
     unwillingness to accept such claims, religious discrimination 
     has not been brought to the forefront of the average 
     employer's concern. This could all change as the country 
     leans toward conservatism and as groups such as the Christian 
     Coalition attempt to bring religion into the mainstream.
       A recent case involving one of the nation's largest 
     employers and religious discrimination may be indicative of 
     future trends. Wal-Mart, the Arkansas-based retail behemoth, 
     settled a religious discrimination suit brought by a former 
     employee. The employee claimed the retailer forced him to 
     quit after he refused to work on his Sabbath. Rather than 
     litigate the claim, Wal-Mart opted to settle. The settlement 
     calls for the retail chain to train all managers in how to 
     reasonably accommodate workers' religious beliefs as well as 
     pay the plaintiff an undisclosed sum of money.
       Wal-Mart is not the only business facing this new problem. 
     The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has brought 
     several religious discrimination suits against other 
     businesses, especially in the Midwest and South. While the 
     focus has been on retail establishments, it could shift to 
     any employer who has weekend shifts.
       The basis for many of these lawsuits is that many 
     businesses have no guidelines or policies to handle requests 
     for religious accommodation, which often means having a 
     weekend work-day off. Many employers feel it is easier to 
     require everyone to work weekends rather than grant 
     exceptions which would create jealousy and an administrative 
     headache.
       However, the courts have clearly stated employers are 
     required to reasonably accommodate requests to observe the 
     Sabbath or other religious days unless the request causes 
     ``undue hardship'' to the business.
       In order to prevent claims of religious discrimination, an 
     employer should have a policy dealing with employee requests 
     to observe the Sabbath or other religious days. Employers 
     should not have blanket policies requiring weekend work 
     unless they are prepared to justify that to grant days off 
     would be an undue hardship on the business. Typical examples 
     of what may constitute ``undue hardship'' are: difficulty to 
     replace an employee due to a lack of notice or simply not 
     having enough employees; importance of the employee; or 
     economic hardship on the employer.
       Scheduling problems are not the only area where employers 
     face the possibility of religious discrimination. In many 
     offices it's common for employees to have bibles, signs, 
     posters or other religious articles on their desks. It's also 
     typical for some persons to talk openly about their religious 
     beliefs and perhaps refer to these belief in some aspect of 
     performing their job. This raises the delicate question of 
     how an employer walks the line between allowing employees to 
     express their religious beliefs and maintaining a 
     professional work environment that does not invite friction 
     between individuals of different religions.
       This can be especially difficult when a supervisor or other 
     decisionmaker is the one proclaiming his religious beliefs. 
     The classic example is the fundamentalist Christian employer 
     who only promotes persons of the same religion and church as 
     the employer. This could easily be challenged as a form of 
     religious discrimination in which the company could be 
     liable.
       A company's policy should apply equally and fairly to all 
     individuals and religions within the organization. Religious 
     activities that don't impose upon others, disrupt the 
     workplace or create morale problems should be the focus of 
     the policy. For example, this could include a bible on the 
     desk or wearing a cross or other religious symbol as jewelry. 
     Examples of conduct employers probably should not accommodate 
     are proselytizing in the workplace, statements or evidence of 
     religious favoritism, or use of company time and resources 
     for religious practices.
       Using company time and resources for religious practices 
     can be particularly dangerous. In one well-known case, a 
     business required employees to attend staff meetings that 
     began with a short non-denominational talk and prayer. An 
     atheist employee resigned, sued the company and claimed her 
     freedom of conscience was violated by the prayer. The court 
     of appeals ruled the plaintiff's resignation was justified 
     and that the prayers constituted religious discrimination. 
     The voluntary and nondenominational nature of the prayer was 
     discouraged by the court in favor of the plaintiff's claim of 
     a feeling of compulsion to attend and participate.
       Court decisions such as these leave little room for 
     employers to conduct similar religious practices in the 
     workplace. No matter how generic or vague a religious 
     practice may be, there is always the chance it will be deemed 
     offensive by someone.
       The key to avoiding embarrassing and costly litigation is 
     to prepare a clearly defined policy addressing religion, 
     permissible and impermissible actions and to train managers 
     and supervisors to recognize those circumstances in which 
     allegations of religious discrimination may arise. By taking 
     a few simple steps and providing for ``reasonable 
     accommodation'' of religious practices, a proactive company 
     can avoid the time and expense of an unnecessary law suit.

                          ____________________