Religion in the Workplace

Religion in the Workplace
Name
Institution
Abstract
Religion in the workplace is one of the most challenging and controversial areas for employees and employers to work through. According to statistics put forward by EEOC, there is an increase in religious conflicts in the work environment especially, with the gradually assorted and religiously mixed modern society. Title VІІ provides various stipulations regarding the issue that are effective in guiding individuals on religion in the workplace. The law states that employers should not treat their employees with a basis of religious bias. Employees are not obligated to take part in or avoid any specific religious undertakings as a necessity for their employment. Employers are expected to rationally accommodate workers’ genuine religious observances and beliefs except when the accommodations would lead to an undue hardship. Employers are also responsible for taking corrective measures against religious harassment. Finally, employers should not retaliate against workers for affirming the civil liberties under Title VII. Therefore, all individuals in the work environment are responsible for upholding the laws relating to religion in the workplace. There is no provision allowing people to articulate or try to impose on others their religious beliefs in the work environment. As a result, the employer can prohibit or stop any posting of religious quotes at the workplace (Epstein 2014).
Religion in the Workplace
Religious discrimination encompasses dealing with a person hostilely for the reason that their religious beliefs are dissimilar.

The law defends all people from different religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism and other individuals who hold genuine, spiritual, ethical, or virtuous beliefs (Ghumman et al. 2013). The law prohibits religious discrimination in whichever facet of employment, comprising, appointing, dismissing, salary, job projects, raises, layoff, education, unconventional benefits, as well as any other phrase or circumstance of employment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids federal agencies from victimizing against employees or claimants for employment for their religious beliefs. Title VII also obliges federal agencies to federal agencies to levelheaded accommodate religious beliefs and observances of workers or candidates except when doing so would inflict an undue hardship on the agency. The law pertains to employers with fifteen or more employees, as well as national and resident governments (Epstein 2014). This paper focuses on laws regarding religion in the workplace while discussing reasonable accommodation, extreme hardship, religious harassment, and reprisal.
Reasonable Accommodation
Title VII demands that federal agencies, on the communication of an application, to reasonably accommodate employees who have religious beliefs, customs or observances that would differ with work requisites except when the accommodation would establish an undue hardship (Epstein 2014). A religious accommodation is any modification in the work setting that will permit an employee or candidate to observe his or her religion. Accommodation entreaties frequently articulate work programs, outfit, and grooming, or religious representation in the workplace (Roberts, Iqbal & Billoo 2014). If it would not model unjustifiable destitution, the employer has to concede the accommodation. In the event of requesting an accommodation, the employee is not necessitated to express his or her entreaty through any complex phrases or procedures. Conversely, the worker should inform the agency of their request for an accommodation founded on a dispute between the person’s religious observances or customs and their work obligations or the agency’s solicitation process (Epstein 2014).
The employee ought to make the appeal orally and in the inscription, in the direction of his or her proximate manager. The entreaty for an accommodation may prompt a communication process, predominantly if the manager calls for more information, the management and the worker making the appeal will discuss the request and evaluate available possibilities (Vaidyanathan 2014). There are several religious accommodations pursued in the workplace. The appeal, for instance, may be due to circumstance among other reasons. An employee may need an exemption from the organization’s clothing and grooming for religious reasons. For example, a Muslim woman who is religiously required to wear a headscarf (hijab), a Jewish man who puts on a skullcap (yarmulke), a Rastafari who has dreadlocks on his or her head, or a Sikh who has long hair and unshaved beard. The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides an official support document, Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities and an information sheet elucidating the issues on religious accommodation to their high prevalence in work setting (Epstein 2014).
Other examples of religious accommodation requests include, a Catholic worker appealing for a change of schedule so that they can observe Good Friday. An atheist may also request to be exempted from religious supplication done at the beginning of staff meetings. A Christian pharmacist may request to be relieved of dealing with birth control prescriptions. Accommodation may also comprise assigning a vacant or private site in the workplace where a religious custom can take place if it is disordering other employees, for example, daily prayers are done by Muslims. Clearly, there is a wide range of religious appeals that an employee or applicant may make in the work setting. Employers may permit these religious accommodation entreaties, but they can also deny the appeals for secular motives (Roberts, Iqbal & Billow 2014).
Undue Hardship
An employer is not entailed to offer an accommodation that leads to undue hardship. The U.S Supreme Court directs that the statement above means that an employer does not have to encounter more than marginal expenses to accommodate a worker’s religious observance. The EEOC has construed the statement to mean that an employer can demonstrate that an appealed accommodation impacts unjustifiable destitution if: accommodating a staff member needs extraordinary directorial costs, reduces proficiency in other jobs, oversteps on the workers’ job privileges and entitlements, hinders workplace welfare, and instigates other employees share of possibly harmful or onerous work, or if the propositioned accommodation diverges with another law. Therefore, an agency must substantiate a rebuttal to accommodate a worker’s religious customs and observances. The hardship that would be inflicted on the agency must be sincere and not simply conjectured (Epstein 2014).
There are several examples of difficulties that are more than minimal for an employer to incur including, encroaching upon a seniority system, instigating a deficiency of essential staffing, endangering health or security, or costing the employer enormous expenses. For instance, if a schedule modification would force an unjustifiable hardship, the employer should permit other employees to willingly stand in for or change shifts to accommodate a worker’s religious observance. Infrequent reimbursement of overtime to staff that replaces shifts is not viewed as an undue hardship. Consumer partiality or workmate dissatisfaction does not validate refusal of religious accommodation. It is recommended that employers utilize a case-by-case resolve of all appealed religious accommodations (Ghumman et al. 2013).
Religious Harassment
Title VІІ, an employer, has the absolute responsibility to uphold a work environment liberated of harassment, extortion, and recurrent affront. Religious harassment could comprise, for example, abusive remarks regarding an individual’s sacred beliefs. As much as the law does not forbid mere teasing, extemporaneous remarks, or solitary incidents that are less thought-provoking, harassment is prohibited when it is recurrent or so serious that it instigates an unreceptive work environment or leads to a confrontational employment decision (Epstein 2014). The harasser could be the target’s manager, a direction in a different section at work, a workmate, or any other stakeholders such as a customer (Vaidyanathan 2014).
Just as any other form of aggravation such as sexual harassment, religious pestering can take place on one or both of the two forms; quid pro quo provocation and hostile environment agitation. Quid pro quo harassment is when a perpetrator pursues trading substantial employment advantage for amenability with the offender’s religious mandates and when the exigencies do not comply, the committee employs an adverse employment exploit. In a hostile work environment, harassment takes place when there is belligerent conduct aimed at an employee as for the reason of the victim’s religion. In cases where the compartment is so harsh or extensive that it modifies the stipulations and settings of employment and the employer does not take any judicious initiatives to put an end to the conduct. To ascertain the nature and validity of harassment complaints, the court will examine the inclusive details of the case, taking in, the regularity of the prejudiced conduct, its gravity, if it is tangibly intimidating or chastening, or a simple invasive remark, and whether it irrationally obstructs an employees’ work productivity (Roberts, Iqbal & Billoo 2014).
An employer is accountable for workplace hostility in various situations. For instance, the Supreme Court stipulated that religious harassment does not necessarily have to hugely modify an individual’s psychological health for it to be challenging under Title VІІ as long as the setting would be rationally professed and is observed as inimical or offensive. If workmates are forming an unreceptive work environment over religious biases and the employer fails to execute timely and reasonable corrective measures, he or she is liable. In a case where an immediate manager is creating a hostile work setting founded on religious harassment, an employer is accountable. The employer can demonstrate, as a vindication that the pestering led to no perceptible unfavorable employment conflict or that the victimized employee unduly failed to make the most of any deterrent or corrective prospects that the employer offered (Epstein 2014).
About religious harassment at the workplace, the employee behavior towards the act is essential. Those who are victims of the discriminatory conduct should make it known to the perpetrator that they wish the department to end. If the behavior continues, the worker should give an account of it to the immediate manager or the appropriate agency. Employees who purpose preaching in the workplace should stop in a case where any person states that the information is unasked for due to religious variations of the workmates. Employees petitioning for an accommodation should inform their supervisors on the description of the dispute between their religious requirements and the work setting. In a case where an employee complaint of religious harassment at work, he or she was exposed to religious discrimination, the discriminatory action was indeed founded on religion, the harassment rationally created a hostile work environment, and that the employer was accountable for the pestering (Ghumman et al. 2013)
Retaliation
Title VII prohibits employment prejudice against any person founded on the individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Epstein 2014). A different section that is, Sec. 2000e-3(a), provides that an employer is forbidden from demonstrating prejudice against an employee or applicant due to the individual’s opposition to act in the work setting that is described as unlawful under Title VІІ, this is the anti-retaliation stipulation. An employer retaliates against a worker when, as for the reason that the employee is employed legal protections against discriminatory actions at the workplace, the employer engaged in a confrontational act against the worker. There is a high prevalence of retaliation charges that the EEOC handles that have been estimated to be over 37% concerning religious discrimination (Epstein 2014).
The law stipulates on the kinds of demeanor that are protected from retaliation. They include putting on record a charge, expressing one’s intentions to file a charge, contesting or conflicting with a professed prejudice towards oneself or a workmate, aiding another person in fighting against a discrimination, providing verification to an investigator, repudiating to take part in discriminatory actions, and declining to falsely testify as a way to defend an employer that engaged in prejudice. Therefore, employees have the right to report any acts of retaliation to the appropriate agencies (Roberts, Iqbal & Billoo 2014).
Conclusion
It is thus clear that the law offers several provisions against any acts of religious discrimination in the workplace. In the modern world, it is necessary to respect the various religious beliefs and observances that people hold to ensure harmony in the workplace. Employees do not have any rights to articulate their religious beliefs or try to impose them on others in the place of work. Therefore an employer can restrict workers from posting bible quotes or another religious slogan in the workplace. As aforementioned an employer is accountable for workplace hostility if they fail to take corrective measures against the discriminatory actions or they engage in the act itself. The law protects employees from any form of discrimination, and thus, there are accommodation laws provided for other issues. Employers should make it their responsibility to evaluate employees’ religious accommodation request case-by-case to ensure the working environment is conducive to all members with varying religious beliefs and practices. (Vaidyanathan 2014). The increasing number of religious conflicts resulting at the workplace is an indication of the need for all staffs to understand and adhere to the stipulations of the law. Respect and accommodation of other people’s religious beliefs and practices are the keys to avoiding numerous lawsuits and creating a hostile environment at the workplace that hinders productivity (Ghumman et al., 2013). Hence, religion is a sensitive issue that needs to be considered with accommodation and respect when interacting with others.
References
Epstein, R. A. (2014). Public Accommodations under Civil Rights Act of 1964: Why Freedom of Association Counts as a Human Right. Stan. L. Rev., 66, 1241.
Ghumman, S., Ryan, A. M., Barclay, L. A., & Markel, K. S. (2013). Religious discrimination in the workplace: A review and examination of current and future trends. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(4), 439-454.
Roberts, R., Iqbal, F., & Billoo, Z. (2014). Changing Face of the American Worker, The. Asian Am. LJ, 21, 209.
Vaidyanathan, B. (2014, January). Overlap and Separation: Religion-Work Boundaries in the Workplace. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 17768). Academy of Management.