Employment Regulations Case Study

Abstract

This paper is an examination of a case study in employment regulation. The relationship between dress code policy and religious freedom of expression can come into conflict. In this case, an ex-police officer has sued his former employment agency for intentional religious discrimination over wearing a religious symbol on his uniform. The policy of the agency prohibits additions to the uniform without prior authorization. The employee refused to follow the policy by not removing a religious symbol from his uniform and was ultimately terminated. The paper argues that the agency acted appropriately, and the officer was not a victim of intentional discrimination.

Introduction

Employment regulation is a dynamic, ever-changing, and sometimes tumultuous field.  Regulations work to find the most harmonious balance of honoring personal employee beliefs and the mission of the employer agencies. When religious expression and the first amendment become the conflict between two parties, the debate often gets fiery. Daniels v. Arlington is an example of the conflict that can arise in employment contract. Disagreements can occur between an individual who desires to express religious affiliation with fervor in the workplace with an agency that must embrace a mission of public neutrality. The following paper examines the disagreement between Daniels, who wants to wear a religious symbol on his uniform, and Arlington, that has a vested interest in promoting an environment that does not endorse personal beliefs and opinion of its officers. 

Officer Daniels had been reassigned from a position that allowed plain clothes to a position that required a uniform. Two different policies governed police officer attire in the different positions. The plain clothes position, being withdrawn from the public eye, was much more liberal in clothing options. While in this position, Daniels always wore a religious cross pin to express his faith. Upon being transferred to the uniformed assignment, Daniels decided to continue wearing the pin even though he knew it was against the mandates of the new position’s policy.  Daniels was given options of accommodation that included other approved platforms of religious expression or even taking another assignment; however, he refused the accommodations, continued wearing the pin on his uniform, and was ultimately fired. Daniels retaliated with a lawsuit charging Arlington Police Department with intentional religious discrimination. The lawsuit was struck down as the religious expression was extremely personal in nature and certain occupations such as police and military have no obligation to allow personal expressions within a field that must uphold perceived neutrality. Freedom of speech and expression does not imply that an employee can say or do anything they desire when it comes to beliefs and opinions. 

Freedom of speech and expression is an often-misunderstood concept. Daniels is blinded by his intense faith and clearly misunderstands the rights granted under the first amendment. Canavan (1984) observed that “conventional wisdom is that it provides for virtually unlimited freedom of expression…we need to challenge this thought by asking why we have free speech and what we are trying to accomplish by it.” The right of expression does not grant Daniels the right to profess his belief or attempt to recruit citizens towards a given faith. That is not the intent or purpose of the first amendment. Our laws must uphold that the importance of public perception toward the police is far more important than giving Daniels the right to express his faith to others while at work.  

There are limitations to the freedoms granted by the first amendment. Those limitations are usually found when the freedom of speech for one individual interferes with the freedoms of another. Mill & Spitz (1859) argue for the “harm principle” - freedoms of speech should be limited in the event that the expression harms another person or entity. Slander and liable are often argued as freedoms of speech; however, they are considered harmful actions that wrongfully harm another. That is why slander and liable are illegal. Outside of interpersonal freedoms, there are also exclusive limitations imposed on citizens when they decide to join a uniformed position in the military or police force. Supreme Court decisions have protected the police and military from giving a perceived endorsement of any personal employee beliefs. The security of our society lies in the ability of our police to enforce the law. Citizens must feel like the police will enforce the law in an unbiased way that is without regard to preference affiliation (Joseph & Alex, 1972). The police uniform defines an officer as a group that is unified. By allowing discrepancies in police uniform, agency leadership can wrongly convey to the public that they have different beliefs and might approach an issue differently. The public must perceive officers as being neutral and unbiased so they feel confident that they can comply with police requests. 

Religion is a controversial topic that fuels debate when people are intolerant. The faith tolerance ability of different people and social groups is broad and creates significant controversy. According to Newman (1978) “there are many obstacles to religious tolerance – superstition, misunderstanding, indolence, ethnocentrism, genuine differences in religious creeds.” For example, highly religious people may belief that they must persuade others to join a faith group or they will be punished endlessly throughout an afterlife.  On the other, we have agnostics that do not profess a religious preference or follow a higher power. Under the umbrella of closed-mindedness, the behaviors of one group can offend the feelings of another, and vice versa.   

Balance can be attained between officers like Daniels and employment agencies. That balance can be found in the area of a reasonable accommodations offer. Reasonable accommodations can be agreed upon that compromise the needs and beliefs of both parties. The only barrier may be an unwillingness of one party to be open-minded and weigh the needs of the other party. In this particular case, Arlington Police Department acted accordingly by first denying Daniels’ request and upholding police neutrality, and then offering several options of settlement. Daniels had the choice of wearing another method of expression such as a ring instead of a pin, wearing the pin underneath the uniform, or even transferring back to his previous non-uniformed position. 

The court’s decision to uphold Arlington Police Department’s policy was fitting. Arlington’s defense was so powerful because they could prove an effort to offer a compromise to Daniels. The Police Department showed intent to uphold policy yet offer reasonable accommodations to Daniels. Balance can be found in the ability of both parties to compromise. Daniels was unwilling to compromise and was fired. The mission of the department is to enforce the law in an unbiased and neutral manner. Awareness must exist in each government agency that public perception may tie the agency to the employee in regard to expressions. The employee must then understand that the first amendment is not unlimited in freedom. Government employees, in particular, are subjected to policies in the form of dress codes to prevent a perception of agency support towards personal employee beliefs. Although religious expressions are very important to protect socially, the value of embracing uniform policy is far greater than upholding the personal religious desires of one employee. The answer to this dilemma is finding a balance between employee expression and the appearance of unbiased neutrality. 

References

Canavan, F. (1984). Freedom of expression: purpose as limit. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press and the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.

Joseph, N., & Alex, N. (1972). The Uniform: A Sociological Perspective. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 719.

Mill, J. S., & Spitz, D. (1975). On liberty. New York: Norton.

Newman, J. (1978). The idea of religious tolerance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15(3), 187.