Whoa. That could be huge.
Luckily for most religions, the precise details of their origin myths and stories are buried in the mists of time.
The more recent entrants, notably The Book of Mormon, could be in trouble. But I doubt that type of scrutiny will ever be applied in the US.
Note: I do not believe that allowing the wearing of colander hats by military cadets would be deemed a reasonable accommodation by federal courts, even if there was no question of validity of the religion. As others have noted the hijab may or may not be a reasonable accommodation, depending on the specifics of its practicality. The reasonable accommodation language makes it pointless to come up with absurd examples, because if they are absurd enough to significantly interfere with the purpose of the activity, they don’t have to be accommodated.
Just to make this clear: a government entity cannot avoid the duty to make reasonable accommodations by simply saying that it never makes exceptions; it must rather show why making this particular exception would not be reasonable.
Hunt- excellent post. And it’s not just government. A corporation can’t decide that Muslim employees cannot take their break at whatever time the fast ends during Ramadan because “we don’t make exceptions”. If employees generally get to decide that they can eat lunch at 1 pm or 2 pm or 4 pm or whenever it works for them, deciding that this decision-making won’t work for the sake of breaking a fast won’t fly with the courts.
There’s an interesting case in New Jersey right now of a Muslim employee at a hospital who refused to wear gloves to cover her henna tattoos. The hospitals policy is that all tattoos must be covered. They don’t ban tattoos- they just don’t allow them to be visible to patients. Since this employee had them on her hands, her supervisor told her to wear gloves and she refused, citing a religious accommodation.
It’s a fascinating case, since there are very few religious leaders willing to state that henna tattoos are a requirement (a custom among certain groups at certain times- yes.) There are also very few people in the medical field who consider wearing gloves a hardship since most of them see them as beneficial (protecting THEM from patients and not the reverse).
Carry on.
@blossom At first, I wondered why any employee who was dealing with patients during medical procedures shouldn’t have to wear gloves (religious issue or not), but upon reading the article discovered the plaintiff is a receptionist. Interesting case…
http://www.law360.com/articles/758791/nj-muslim-hospital-worker-s-bias-liability-claims-survive
Is there another way to read that full article, @CTTC? The website requires a registration to read trhe full article.
Don’t most hospital workers have to wear gloves to avoid potential contamination or exposure to body fluids? Or was this employee working in the gift shop or something?
Plaintiff is not a medical professional, but the hospitals regulations on tattoos apply equally to everyone.
It is indeed an interesting case.
Can you find a link that doesn’t require a registration? Lexis Nexis simple links to the other site, which requires a registration.
I don’t have a link- sorry. This case is being followed by HR folks around the country with avid interest… my company does not have a tattoo policy, but many do. And the dress code issue is perennial. It would have been hard to believe back in the 1950’s that a factory would need to tell employees that flip-flops are a safety hazard at work. People wore them at the beach and the shower. period, full stop. Now that they are considered appropriate for every single occasion… they are STILL a safety hazard, but companies need actual on the books policies!
I think it’s also worth noting that whether something is a reasonable accommodation depends on the specific facts, even for the same religious practice. For example, if a person does not work on a certain day of the week for religious reasons, there can be some jobs in which it is reasonable to accommodate that restriction, and others in which it is not. The Citadel would have a much harder time defending a refusal to accommodate a receptionist’s request to wear a hijab than it will have with respect to military cadets.
I don’t know – when I first read it, no registration was required, but I went back just now and it is requiring registration.
Hunt- I believe there were state level cases which address the issue you raise in NY back in the 1970’s. Retailers commonly refused to accommodate sabbath observers, until a court pointed out that if a company opens its stores every day of the week (and gives employees two days off), refusing to hire Seventh Day Adventists or observant Jews or Muslims was a very odd (and ultimately- illegal) practice.
I don’t have a citation- sorry- and it’s ancient history.
@hunt “I do not believe that allowing the wearing of colander hats by military cadets would be deemed a reasonable accommodation by federal courts”
But the holey colander will protect them like the LDS magic underwear.
"Norwich University, a nearly 200-year-old private military college in Vermont, has granted an accepted student’s request to wear hijab…“Regardless of their spiritual or religious affiliation, all students and employees should feel welcome and comfortable at Norwich University,” Norwich President Richard Schneider wrote in announcing the exception to the required Corps of Cadets uniform. “Norwich University is a learning community that is American in character yet global in perspective.”
Jewish cadets will also now be allowed to wear a yarmulke."
Pastafarians making headway on religious rights as Wisconsin becomes the fourth state to allow holy colander on drivers’ licenses.