Dress Code Policies and Title VII

Case Study
HRMN 400

Introduction Employers have the right to enforce dress code policies in the workplace. They establish these dress codes to convey a certain image to their customers, to portray a professional image, to convey a neutral public image with respect to religion, or to enforce safety standards (Marcum & Perry, 2010). However, they cannot discriminate against their employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against individuals based on race, sex, color, religion, ethnicity, and national origin (Dress, 2011). The employer must make reasonable accommodations for their employees’ religious beliefs, unless it causes undue hardship on them.
A FedEx delivery employee, Christopher Polk, became a Rastafarian and grew dreadlocks to symbolize his new religion. This violated the company’s dress code policy. After several internal discussions with Polk, FedEx gave him two options. He needed to either cut his hair or be assigned to a different job, which had no direct customer contact and paid less. Polk refused both options and was terminated. He sued FedEx under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis of religious discrimination (Bernardin, 2010).

Position

There are three criteria, which must be met before an employee can initiate a religious challenge against their employer. First, the employee must establish a sincere religious belief, which conflicts with the employer’s dress code policy. The employee must then inform the employer of the conflict. Finally, the employee must prove they were disciplined for failing to comply with the dress code policy (Robinson, Franklin, Epermanis, & Stowell, 2007). As long as these criteria are met, an employee has a valid complaint against their employer on the grounds of religious discrimination.
In this case, Polk has a valid case against FedEx. He informed his employer that his dreadlocks were part of his religious beliefs, which conflicted with the company’s dress code policy. There were several internal discussions but FedEx did not make reasonable accommodations for Polk’s religious beliefs. They wanted him to cut his hair, which went against his religious beliefs. This may have been a valid request if they could have demonstrated a safety or health issue associated with the hairstyle. If the company could have demonstrated a safety issue associated with the policy, an exception to the policy for an employee would be considered undue hardship (Marcum & Perry, 2010). In this case, FedEx wanted him to cut his hair to maintain a professional image, not for safety reasons. FedEx also offered Polk a different job position, which gave him no direct contact with the customers. If he took this job position, he would have to take a cut in pay. An employee should not have to change job positions or pay cut because of their religious beliefs. Polk refused both options was terminated by the company for failure to comply with the dress code policy. This is a form of religious discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There have been several past cases of religious discrimination, which demonstrates an employer’s responsibility toward employee religious rights. In the case of EEOC v. Pollard Agency, the company’s uniform policy violated the employee’s religious rights. Marian Lawson was fired for wearing a religious headscarf, which violated the company uniform policy. She took her complaint to the EEOC, which sued the company. The company had to settle for $49,556 ( Legal, 2010). This case is similar to the case Polk has against FedEx. The employee’s religious beliefs conflicted with the company’s dress code policy. The employee notified the employer of the conflict and was terminated. This violation cost the company a lot of money in legal fees, along with the settle amount.
Based on the information given in the case study and the outcome of EEOC v. Pollard, the court will more than likely rule in favor of Polk. He can demonstrate a religious connection to his hairstyle. He can provide enough evidence to demonstrate how the company refused to reasonably accommodate his religious beliefs by requiring him to cut his hair. These facts demonstrate or show religious discrimination against Polk by FedEx.

Recommendation

The company should reinstate Polk in his old job position. He should be allowed to keep his dreadlocks, as long as he pulls his hair back. This does not violate his religious beliefs and it would give him a more professional appearance. This solution would demonstrate a reasonable accommodation by FedEx. It would benefit both the company and Polk. The company would save money in legal fees and Polk would be able to keep his job without sacrificing his religious beliefs.
In the future, the company should review their dress code policy. They should make sure the policy is reasonable. It is up to the managers and supervisors to ensure the policy is appropriate to the workplace, administered evenly and fairly, and sensitive to religious beliefs (Zachary, 2006). They should eliminate any policies that have no clear business reason. There should be documentation for the dress codes adopted by the company. This documentation should include an explanation of the health and/or safety reasons for the dress code policy. The policy should apply to both males and females but be flexible enough for reasonable accommodations. In addition, the policy should clearly state the disciplinary steps that will be taken if there is a violation. During the hiring process, the job applicants should be made aware of the dress code policy and the consequences of violating the policy. The company should make sure any discipline over dress code policy violations are not culturally or religiously biased (Dress, 2011). Managers and supervisors should be consistent when enforcing the dress code policy and disciplining employees for violations. They should hold all employees to the same standards, with reasonable accommodation to religious practices.
The HR specialists for FedEx should create and distribute dress code pamphlets for all FedEx employees. The pamphlet should clearly state the company policy, along with an explanation for the dress code standards. It is the responsibility of the HR specialists, along with the supervisors, to enforce these standards within the company.

Conclusion

Many companies have dress code policies to promote an orderly workplace environment and provide a professional business image to their customers. Employers have a legal right to set dress code standards for all their employees. However, they must ensure they do not discriminate against their employees by enforcing such standards. When it comes to religion, the employer has an obligation to reasonable accommodate their employees. If they do not, they are in violation of the Tile VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This case is another example of how employers must be careful when establishing dress code policies and enforcing those policies. FedEx and other companies need to make reasonable accommodations to their employees’ religious beliefs, as long as it does not cause undue hardship. They need to base the policies on business-related reasons and explain those reasons to their employees. Finally, they should be consistent in enforcing dress code policies and disciplining their employees for violations. It will help prevent discrimination complaints against companies and promote a positive working environment for all employees.

Bibliography

Bernardin, H. J. (2010). Critical Thinking Application 3-A. In Human Resources Management: An Experiential Approach (5th ed., p. 513). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Dress and Grooming Policies: Set Limits, but Avoid Discrimination. (2011, May). HR Specialist: Minnesota Employment Law, 4(5), 7.
Legal News for Supervisors. (2010). Legal Alert for Supervisors, 6(123), 3.
Marcum, T., & Perry, S. J. (2010). Dressed for Success: Can a Claim of Religious Discrimination be Successful. Labor Law Journal, 61(4), 184-191.

Robinson, R. K., Franklin, G.M., Epermanis, K., & Stowell, N. F. (2007). Employee Appearance Policies and Title VII: New Challenges for Sex Differentiated Standards. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 12(4), 287-302.

Zachary, M. (2006). Labor Law for Supervisors. Supervision, 67(3), 23-26.