Both federal and California state laws prohibit discrimination in employment practices based on religion. However, religion can sometimes be a rather complicated matter legally. To help clarify some of the most important facts about religious discrimination for employees who think they may be a victim of it, this article answers a few common questions concerning workplace religious discrimination.

3 Questions About Religious Discrimination at Work

In today’s post, we’ll share 3 questions you might have about religious discrimination at work

1. What counts as religion?
2. I’m an atheist. Am I protected?
3. Can I wear my hijab to work?

Let’s start at the top.

1. What counts as religion?

There is not a simple answer to this question, as many things are covered under religion, legally speaking. At the most basic level, the term “religion” in the context of illegal discrimination encompasses all elements of religious creed, belief, observance, and practice. Additionally, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), religious practices include ethical or moral beliefs about right and wrong, given that such beliefs are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.

Because it can be difficult to ascertain whether something falls under the protection of religious discrimination laws, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) outlines a test that has three components that can be used together to make such determinations. The first part requires that the religion in question focuses on fundamental questions related to matters of a profound, imponderable nature. For example, religion might address the meaning of life or humanity’s place in the universe. The second part of the test asserts that religion, by nature, is comprehensive and includes a system of beliefs rather than merely a solitary, isolated teaching. An example of this can be found in any of the major traditional religions. In Catholicism, for instance, there are beliefs about various holy figures, different kinds of sins, life after death, and a myriad of other things. Finally, the third part of FEHA’s test states that religions are recognizable by the existence of certain formal and external signs. For example, religious ceremonies, articles of faith, and holidays could all be considered formal and external signs under this part of the test.

Interestingly, the federal standards for what constitutes religion are less stringent than FEHA’s definition, which is atypical, as most employment law matters are more pro-employee in California than under federal law. Under federal law, which has no test like FEHA’s, Title VII has been said to leave “little room for a party to challenge the religious nature of an employee’s professed beliefs,” as merely moral or ethical beliefs can be seen as part of a religion if they are held as strongly as traditional religious beliefs are held. Under federal law, both Satanism and Rastafarianism have been deemed to be worthy of religious protection.

A good example of California’s standards in this situation being stricter can be found in the case of Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group. In this case, Jerold Friedman worked as a temporary employee for the defendant and was offered a permanent position, provided that he received the mumps vaccination as all employees were required to do. However, Friedman took issue with the vaccine being grown in chicken embryos due to his strictly held vegan beliefs that proscribe the use of animal products in virtually all aspects of life, including food, clothing, and medical testing. When the offer was rescinded due to his refusal to get the vaccination, he alleged religious creed discrimination and retaliation under the FEHA. The lower court dismissed his case, saying veganism was not a religious creed under the FEHA, and the California Court of Appeal upheld this decision after an analysis of what religion means under the law. They declared that veganism did not pass any of the three elements of the aforementioned test. For the first part, Friedman’s vegan beliefs did not refer to profound issues like the purpose of life or matters of human life and death. For the second part, his belief system did not come from a higher power and was therefore not considered comprehensive enough. For the third part, it was found that veganism does not have formal or external signs of religion like holidays, teachers, or services. Perhaps Friedman would have seen a different outcome under federal law.

2. I’m an atheist. Am I protected?

Yes. While atheism is essentially the absence of religion, religious discrimination law does protect atheists from being discriminated against based on their lack of religious beliefs. This was clarified in the case of Young v. Southwestern Savings and Loan Association, where it was concluded that an employee who resigned after being told she could not skip meetings that included religious prayers was a victim of religious discrimination. Essentially, it was found that her resignation was a case of constructive discharge, meaning she was compelled to quit due to intolerable working conditions (religious harassment) and her situation could be treated as if she had been fired, which in this case constituted a violation of Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination.

3. Can I wear my hijab to work?          

      Under California law, religious dress and grooming practices are explicitly protected, as they fall under the classification of religious beliefs or observances. This means clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, and other such items typically must be permitted, as well as different kinds of head, facial, and body hair if they are part of religious beliefs. Moreover, even in cases where an employer would not typically permit such items because of a dress code, employers are still obligated to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. This means that an employer subject to religious discrimination law can only deny the right to wear religious garments if it would impose an undue hardship. Religious accommodations can also include schedule changes to accommodate religious holidays, among other things. In one interesting case, EEOC v. CONSOL Energy, Inc., a lifelong evangelical Christian, requested an accommodation be made so he would not have to use a new biometric hand scanner, as his interpretation of the Bible was that using it with either hand could lead to his identification with the Antichrist. His employer accommodated people with hand injuries by allowing them to enter their employee numbers on a keyboard, which would have been satisfactory for the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff was not given this option and he resigned, choosing his religion over his employment, which was viewed as constructive discharge just as it was in the previously mentioned case, Young v. Southwestern Savings and Loan Association. Ultimately, the plaintiff was awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress plus $436,860 in back pay, which just goes to show how important it is to make accommodations for religion in the workplace.

            If you have been a victim of employment discrimination in the workplace, call a discrimination attorney to find out what your options are to get restitution.