Resources
Session Three: May 14, 2008
Struggling with Religious Diversity: Rekindling Respect
The following is a timeline of legal decisions and modifications made at various points in U.S. history that concern religious diversity.
1791: Amendment I of the United States Constitution
The first two clauses of Amendment state, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This statement guarantees the freedom of religion as it prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion as well as enforces the separation of church and state.
1964: Congress enacts Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Enacted to prohibit employers with 25 or more employees from discriminating against applicants or employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, Title VII allowed for religious consideration if religion is necessary to the normal operation of the employer's business, if the employer is a church, or a religion based school.
Title VII did not require employers to accommodate employee's religious needs such as altering work schedules or other conditions of employment due to religious beliefs.
1966: Guidelines on Religious Accommodation in the Workplace were published by the EEOC
As a response to complaints of conflicts between work schedules and religious observance the EEOC published an interpretive rule. Its two principles state that Title VII's non-discrimination requirements include employers responsibility to accommodate reasonable religious needs of employees that are possible without serious inconvenience to the conduct of business, and that employers are free to establish normal workweek schedules that employees must follow. In 1967 an amendment was made changing "serious inconvenience" to "undue hardship," and eliminating the section regarding workweek scheduling.
1971: The Supreme Court Leaves the Accommodation Issue Open in Dewey v. Reynolds Metals
Conflict arose due to Reynolds Metals scheduling overtime work on Sundays, the day during which work is prohibited by the Faith Reformed Church of which Dewey is a member. After refusing to secure a substitute, and missing three Sundays of work, Dewey was fired. Dewey then sued Reynolds on grounds of religious discrimination. The Supreme Court's ruling stated that in legislative history there is no Congressional intent to compel a person to accommodate religious beliefs of others. That requirement is found in EEOC Regulations. While the Supreme Court did conclude the rights of the parties involved, it was left unresolved if Title VII's non-discrimination mandate requires reasonable accommodation of employees' religious practices. A year later in 1972, as a response to this case, Congress amended the definition of religion in Title VII to include the EEOC's accommodation principle.
1977: The Supreme Court in Hardison v. Trans World Airlines Interprets "Undue Hardship"
When transferred to a new department, Hardison became unable to acquire a substitute for Saturday shifts during which he observed the Sabbath. Hardison sued Trans World Airlines after he was fired for missing Saturday shifts. In their decision, the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of Title VII was to eliminate discrimination, and by granting favor to Hardison, people who do not observe the Sabbath are being discriminated against. Therefore, the conclusion of the case was that Trans World Airlines had implemented a fair seniority based system of scheduling, and the alternative accommodations purposed by Hardison would cause hardship for the company. The overarching result of this case was defining "undue hardship" as any hardship greater than minimal. In spring of 1978 the EEOC held hearings on this case. They decided that the Supreme Court decision led to confusion over the extent of accommodation, and resulted in fewer accommodations of religious practices. In 1980 the EEOC published rules on religious accommodation.
1986: The Supreme Court in Ansonia v Philbrook, Allows Employers to Choose among Reasonable Accommodations
As a teacher at Ansonia school district, Philbrook expressed conflict and concern over the amount of paid leave given for religious observance. By contract, each employee received three paid days for religious observance. When Philbrook attempted to use paid leave allocated to sick days for additional religious observance, his accommodation was denied because leave for religious observance was already provided for in the contract. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court decided against Philbrook because the school district already had made reasonable accommodation. The Court also stated that because various reasonable accommodations exist, it is the employers' decision on what is allocated. It was also decided that Ansonia did provide reasonable accommodation because Philbrook was given un-paid time off for additional observances; therefore, he did not have to choose between work and religion. It was stated it would not be reasonable if extra accommodation was given for all reasons except religion. A bill opposing this decision was presented in the House in 1989, but no action was taken.
1994: The Workplace Religious Freedom Act is introduced in the House
The purpose of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) was to overturn the decisions of both Hardison and Philbrook. It addressed the issues of reasonable accommodation by the employer, legitimate circumstances for the employee to file against reasonable accommodation, defined undue hardship as requiring significant difficulty or expense and discussed payment for hours worked in substitution for those missed during religious observance. In 1996 it was introduced in the Senate and again in the House. In 1997 the bill was sent to the Senate in both January and July as well as being resent to the House in July. In October of 1997, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee held a hearing of the WRFA. In 1999 and 2000 the bill was reintroduced to both the House and the Senate. WRFA was introduced to the Senate again in 2002. In both the House and the Senate the bill reappeared in 2003. In 2005, the House Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. Since that time no further action has been taken to clarify the issues under debate of defining reasonable accommodation and undue hardship.
Sources:
- "Amendment I." http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment
- "Title VII and Flexible Work Arrangements to Accommodate Religious Practice and Belief." http://www.law.georgetown.edu/workplaceflexibility2010/definition/general/FWA_TitleVII.doc (Microsoft Word® document)
Session Six: Thu, Nov 13, 2008
Confronting Global Diversity: Imagining a Wide Circle of Inclusion
Patricia Digh
David Robinson