Introduction
Discrimination can occur in the workplace in many ways, such as disparate treatment and disparate impact. The latter terms showcase open and subtle formats in which bias can shape decisions or how employees are treated (Héliot et al., 2019). This paper aims to evaluate and assess the Blackwell Security Services’ case on religious discrimination – the company requested an employee to shave his beard, which is worn for religious purposes. By Title VII, religious beliefs must be appropriately valued and respected, and any discrimination violates the law.
Overview of the Case
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) accuses Blackwell Security Services, Inc. of religious discrimination, and this company specializes in staffing services for condominiums and hotels. The focal point of the case revolves around a Muslim employee stationed as a concierge in Chicago, Illinois (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2023).
A significant element of his religious beliefs is wearing a beard; however, after he joined the organization, a supervisor informed him of a company policy that all employees must be clean-shaven. Due to his religious requirements, the employee formally requested an exemption from this particular policy. The EEOC’s documentation shows that Blackwell gave him a choice: shave the beard or face termination (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2023). As a result, the employee became fearful of losing his job, which meant he had to comply and shave his beard.
The key issue here is whether the employer’s refusal to accommodate a religious practice is considered discrimination. The EEOC claims such actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII “makes it unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023, para. 5).
It also requires that employers must not “refuse or fail to make reasonable adjustments to workplace policies or practices that allow individual workers to observe their sincerely held religious beliefs” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023, para. 8). It is important to note that the EEOC tried to handle the issue through its conciliation process; however, it was unsuccessful in doing so.
Employer Actions
The allegations faced by Blackwell Security Services allegations from the EEOC are serious, and the root cause is the employer’s repeated failures to make proper accommodations for its employee’s religious needs. The first action that initiated the entire process was the ultimatum that forced a Muslim worker to either shave the beard or lose his job. Discrimination takes place “when your employer or coworkers mistreat members of a protected class due to their membership in that class” (Eldessouky, 2023, para. 4).
However, harassment can be considered “a form of discrimination that involves adverse actions targeted towards an individual due to their membership in a protected class that creates a hostile work environment” (Eldessouky, 2023, para. 4). I think that while Blackwell’s action does not constitute harassment in its traditional sense since the strict enforcement of their policy is more of a discriminatory behavior. This is especially true because it was done without a proper exploration for reasonable accommodations. In my opinion, it is fascinating to see how discrimination can be done without elements of harassment since these two usually tend to accompany each other.
Elements of the Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the key element of the law relevant to this situation. It mandates employers not to use seemingly neutral discriminatory practices, valid for the given case (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023). The policy to be clean-shaven is seemingly neutral on the surface; however, it propagates severe discrimination against Muslims. In addition, Title VII necessitates that employers make reasonable accommodations for their employees’ religious needs (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023).
Making an exemption and allowing the employee to keep the beard does not require the company to commit major funds or relocate many resources; hence, it firmly falls in the category of reasonable accommodations. Another key element of the law is the term’ reasonable accommodation.’ It refers to adjustments the employee can make without incurring too much cost (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023). In this case, the accommodation would not force the employee to shave his beard, which would incur no direct cost or require extensive adjustment of operations.
If Blackwell had been concerned that the beard was making the concierge ‘unpresentable,’ the accommodation should have been to find a way to make his beard ‘presentable.’ As a result, the employee’s request for an exemption from the clean-shaven policy can be considered a plea for a reasonable religious accommodation. Blackwell would need to present evidence that allowing the employee to maintain his beard would have caused such a hardship, a claim that seems challenging given the circumstances.
In addition, Greg Gochanour – a regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office – emphasized the simplicity of the requested accommodation, suggesting minimal, if any, impact on business operations (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2023). When confronted with such requests, employers should always consider the essence and purpose of Title VII: to protect the rights of individuals from undue workplace discrimination.
Recommended HR Response
Upon learning of the employee’s request for religious accommodation, I think the HR department should have quickly intervened to review the matter. Effective HR practices mandate a thorough evaluation of such requests, thus ensuring they align with legal obligations and company values (Héliot et al., 2019). An open communication channel between HR and the employee would have facilitated a more proper understanding of the religious significance behind his beard.
It is also essential for HR to thoroughly understand Title VII and its implications since it will allow them to correctly guide the company decisions that can affect protected classes (Héliot et al., 2019). In the case of Blackwell Security Services, an internal investigation should have been purposed to negotiate with the employee on how the company could accommodate his religious needs. Based on these findings, the HR director should have provided recommendations for the management to respect the Muslim employee’s religious rights.
HR Prevention Strategies
I think preventing a problem is always better than dealing with one as it emerges. In other words, a prevented case of discrimination will be less costly than even the best approach to addressing a discriminatory act that has already taken place. As a CHRO, I would first focus on the organizational culture since it is where discrimination begins in its subtlest form. I would make sure that the company’s stance on such acts is loud and clear—the company or organization has zero tolerance for such actions.
To double down on the given culture improvement, I would integrate inclusivity training conducted regularly by experts in the field and our HR department managers. Both the workers and managers must be constantly reminded that the organization has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination, and no discrimination action will go unaddressed.
It might take some portion of the work time and be a nuisance for the employees and managers; however, it will be better in the long run due to avoidance of the reputational damage and legal costs. In addition, an ethics hotline must accompany these propositions since confidential reporting of the incidents would further put employees and managers on alert. This means that the HR department will continuously monitor and track discrimination with the help of employees.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as our CEO, you should see the case against Blackwell Security Services as one that underlines the importance of recognizing and respecting religious diversity in the workplace. As an HR leader, I urge you to implement the provided prevention strategies. It is better to avoid such situations altogether than to try to address them after they take place. This is why we should enable greater sensitivity in our organization and adhere to the guidelines provided by laws, such as Title VII.
References
Eldessouky, M. (2023). What is the difference between discrimination and harassment? Eldessouky Law. Web.
Héliot, Y., Gleibs, I. H., Coyle, A., Rousseau, D. M., & Rojon, C. (2019). Religious identity in the workplace: A systematic review, research agenda, and practical implications. Human Resource Management, 59(2), 153-173. Web.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2023). Laws we enforce. Web.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2023). EEOC Sues Blackwell Security Services for religious discrimination. Web.