Religion and Adherence to Employee Dress Code

Abstract 

The constitutional boundaries of freedom of speech and religion are often debated in an attempt to extend its purpose. Especially when representing an official governmental position, individuals must recognize that their personal freedoms do not overshadow the responsibilities and standards of the uniform. While organizations may have potential for individual exceptions to make policy changes, in practice it is often more feasible to employ a “no exceptions” standard across the board. This helps to eliminate the confusion and review that must special accompany special cases. The following will express my personal opinion related to the Supreme Court case of Daniels v. City of Arlington of Texas as well as discuss how freedoms of religion and speech can be balanced against an employer’s dress code. While some insist on wearing religious paraphernalia and others find it intolerable, an employer’s dress code should be legally upheld despite individual requests for exceptions.

Supreme Court’s Findings

I agree with the court’s decision that the Arlington Police Department was not liable for infringing on the freedom of speech for a uniformed official who refused to remove his cross pin. The rule was put in place across the board and was not specific to any religion or organization. In fact, the rule allowed no outside pins to be displayed on the police uniform and did not distinguish between them on the basis of size or purpose. Daniels’ claims do not hold weight because discrimination itself must be a deviation of judgment against the stated rule or standard. In fact, if the police force had allowed Daniels to wear his pen and not allowed others to represent their own personal beliefs on their uniforms, the force would have opened itself up to a genuine discrimination bias. Maintaining a conflict management rule with no exceptions allows the police force to maintain consistency and treat everyone fairly across the board. In addition, Daniel’s intentions of wearing his cross pin on the outside of his uniform must be questioned. If his true intention of wearing it was to represent his faith, he would have been able to accomplish the same goal with the proposed bracelet or ring. This would have allowed him to express his personal beliefs while adhering to the “no pin” standard of the police force. 

Balance of Religion and Employer Dress Code

Religion is a protected class when it relates to discrimination in the workforce. While the integrity of employment regulations for dress codes should be upheld without religious interference, freedom of religion can usually be balanced against an employer’s dress code (ADL, 2012). Daniel had the opportunity to balance representing his belief while also adhering to the dress code. He had multiple options to display a representation of his faith yet refused them in order to push the specific issue of wearing it on the outside of his uniform. This highlights the weight that some people give religious paraphernalia. Often, religious paraphernalia is the only thing distinguishing an individual as being of a certain faith. However, a person’s lifestyle, choices, and the way they carry themselves should be more of a banner for what they believe in than a symbol on their bodies. No one was stopping Daniels from discussing his faith or even sharing it with others, making his discrimination lawsuit even more frivolous. Some may insist on wearing religious symbols because they feel the need to broadcast their personal faith to the world, others find it intolerable because it can make them feel uncomfortable. In this case, it was not a personal feeling of intolerance, but a standard rule against representation of anything other than the police force insignia. Daniel’s inflexibility and staunch insistence perhaps allowed him to become known for an arrogant approach rather than a faith based one. Some aspects of paraphernalia may be a part of a religious requirement, such as a head scarf in the Muslim culture (Friedman, 2010). However, other paraphernalia like cross pins and buttons are defined as preferential rather than a standard part of any one religion. Making an exception to this rule would open the police force up to having to make exceptions for other non-affiliated buttons that were important to affiliated officers, potentially confusing the public’s understanding of the neutral views of the city.

Conclusion

In conclusion, unless a protected religious class is singled out, standard employee dress codes are not discriminatory. While some employers have more strict rules than others, a balance can typically be found that allows the employee to express their faith within employer guidelines. Both employees and employers must be aware of the standards and expectations. As Daniel was aware that a uniformed position with the force would limit his ability to display is pin on his chest, he could have chosen a plethora of other options that would allow him to do so. The Supreme Court ruled in the city’s favor because the policy is clear and upfront about the protocol for uniformed officials, and Daniels pin request was a preference and not a religious requirement. 

References 

Anti-Defamation League, ADL. (2012). Religious accommodation in the workplace: Your rights and obligations. Retrieved from http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/civil-rights/religiousfreedom/religfreeres/ReligAccommodWPlace-docx.pdf  

Friedman, R. (2010). Religious discrimination in the workplace: The persistent polarized struggle. Midwest Black Law Students Association Law Journal. Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=transactions