In 2016 after the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) warned employers and their employees about discrimination in the work place against Muslim, or perceived to be Muslim, people. EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang said, “America was founded on the principle of religious freedom. As a nation, we must continue to seek the fair treatment of all, even as we grapple with the concerns raised by the recent terrorist attacks. When people come to work and are unfairly harassed or otherwise targeted based on their religion or national origin, it undermines our shared and longstanding values of tolerance and equality for all.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and potential employees on the basis of national origin, religion, race, color, or sex. Discrimination can potentially occur in many forms throughout the employment process, including hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, disciplining, and accommodating. While several minority groups are all too familiar with bias and discrimination in the workplace, Muslim/Middle-Eastern people receive discrimination that could most likely end up in violent actions against the innocent people with a different culture.
The EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2017-2021 included within its focus areas the “backlash discrimination against those who are Muslim or Sikh, or persons of Arab, Middle Eastern or South Asian descent, as well as persons perceived to be members of these groups, as tragic events in the United States and abroad have increased the likelihood of discrimination against these communities.” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Strategic Enforcement Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021. In the recent years, protection of Muslim/Middle-Eastern people in the workplace became a priority for the EEOC as there has been several counts of discrimination against these marginalized groups in the public eye, especially certain politicians and others with a big voice.
In June of 2015, the United Stated Supreme Court rejected Abercrombie & Fitch’s defense to a religious discrimination claim filed by a Muslim woman who was not hired because her wearing of a headscarf conflicted with “Look Policy”. Abercrombie argued that its Look Policy was neutral on its face (in that it did not allow head wear by anyone of any religion) and could not therefore constitute intentional discrimination noting that, “when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent failure to hire was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. In other words, do not forget that Title VII requires that otherwise-neutral policies give way to the need for religious accommodation.”
One year later, in September, 2016, a jury awarded 1.5 million dollars to a Muslim employee of the Illinois Department of Transportation whose request for a quiet place to pray during lunch was rejected and was then terminated approximately three months later. This is an example of how bias and discrimination results in hostility and threats, as when this employee was terminated, there are allegations of threats and hostility towards the employee simply for their religion and request for a quiet place to pray, as prayer is an incredibly important part of the Muslim religion.
The Fourth Circuit in Guessous v. Fairview Prop. Invs. LLC, 828 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2016), reviewed a case involving allegations of a supervisor referring to Middle Easterners as “camel people” and Middle Easterners as “a bunch of crooks [who] will stop at nothing to screw you.” Clearly, it is not surprising that these statements would support a discrimination claim. What is more interesting is that the Fourth Circuit found that the supervisors’ frequent discussion and questions regarding Islam and Moroccan culture might be found to have been “motivated by broader ethnic animus.” Obviously, these statements are unacceptable from an employer/supervisor, and foster a hostile environment not including equality or acceptance, making employees and others feel in danger and completely unsafe.
It is clear, when considering hiring and treatment in the workplace, employers should not deny employment to individuals on the basis of their religious attire. Employers should also work closely with the employees to find appropriate religious accommodations that meet requests for prayer space and other religious needs that would not cause undue hardship to the company. Employers should consider conference rooms and other unused space and work with employees regarding breaks and make-up time (where break time is unavailable to accommodate prayer needs).
It is a human right to have different religions and practices, so it must be respected when in the workplace, as everyone is there to simply work and earn a living.
Sources:
Reading this was rather unsettling, as we like to think that discrimination based on race does not take place anymore, but you did a great job of using specific examples and cases to articulate your point and make people aware that this is still very much an issue for some groups of people.
I thought this was a really interesting post because I didn’t realize all of the actions and court cases involved with it. It makes a lot of sense though considering the terrorist attacks that have fundamentally changed how people view Muslims or Arabs. I thought that the story about guy who asked for a quiet space to pray was also really sad because it seems like such a simple request.