Is police work different from schools? Imagine the religious garb is a
necklace or chain (some faiths have such things, I believe); can police
dept. have a legitimate rule that says no necklaces because they are a
danger in fighting with criminals, which does happen? Can she insist on
her head cover if it interferes with riot helmet? Or if she is on the
fire department and it complicates fire gear?
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York 12208-3494
518-445-3386
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/13/07 11:00 PM >>>
I think these dual-role cases are often difficult. Vis a vis the
public, Webb is the government, barred by the Establishment Clause from
practicing religion. But vis a vis her governmental employer, Webb is
an individual, affirmatively entitled with rights to practice religion
under the Free Exercise Clause (and Title VII). These competing
concerns produce a number of hard cases.
But I find this particular case to be fairly easy. Webb's exercise of
religion does not interfere with her job performance (unlike the Amish
man or Quaker officer), and it imposes no burden on any third parties
(unlike the male Orthodox Jewish officer). Ultimately, barring
religious individuals from wearing religious symbols like the khimar or
yarmulke will mean that any individual who refuses to convert or cover
will be effectively barred from governmental employment. And in many
lines of work we are talking about here (i.e., the police force, the
public schools, etc.), the government is the largest employer -- denying
Webb's claim here would not only strip her of her current employment,
but it may mean putting her out of her chosen field of work altogether
(as long as she wants to maintain her religious views).
Chris
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:10:12 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Muslim
Policewoman Barred from Wearing Khimar on the Job:> > It strikes me that
her claim is not like Goldman's (which might be the> analogy that comes
to mind), in that he wanted to wear something (a> skullcap under his
uniform hat) that would not be visible to anyone most> of the time; the
dissenters in that case made a strong argument that his> violation of
the military rules was insignficant and could not affect> the military
in any meaningful way. It is also worth noting that an> Army Captain is
likely to deal only with people in the military, while> a police officer
deals with the general public, which makes neutrality> all the more
important. How far, one wonders, should one take this> argument. Could
an Amish Man claim the right to be a police officer in> Pennsylvania but
not be forced to drive or ride in a squad car? Would a> Quaker officer
refuse to carry a weapon? Could a male Orthodox Jewish> officer refuse
to have a female partner in his squad car? The demands> for special
treatment based on religion might be endless. > > Paul Finkelman>
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law> and Public
Policy> Albany Law School> 80 New Scotland Avenue> Albany, New York
12208-3494> > 518-445-3386 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/13/07 7:51 PM >>>> FYI, in case you're
interested. > > -----Original Message-----> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:50 PM> To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Muslim
Policewoman Barred from> WearingKhimar on the Job:> > Posted by Eugene
Volokh:> Muslim Policewoman Barred from Wearing Khimar on the Job:>
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_06_10-2007_06_16.shtml#118177859>
7> > > The khimar is "a headpiece ... which covers the hair, forehead,
sides> of the head, neck, shoulders, and chest," but not, at least in
this> instance, the face.> > Philadelphia Police Department Directive 78
apparently prescribes a> [1]uniform uniform, with no exceptions for any
religious apparel or> any religious symbols. The case suggests that the
uniform requirement> is broad enough to exclude ashes on the forehead on
Ash Wednesday,> and> therefore basically any non-uniform symbols.> >
Police officer Kimberlie Webb claimed that Title VII of the Civil>
Rights Act of 1964 required the city to accommodate her religious>
practice by exempting her from the strict uniformity requirement, and>
letting her wear the khimar. Title VII does require employers to>
provide exemptions for employees whose religions conflict with>
generally applicable work rules, but not when granting such an>
exemption would create an "undue hardship" for the employer. Courts>
have set the "undue hardship" bar pretty low, so that anything "more>
than a de minimus cost" would constitute an "undue hardship" that the>
employer need not bear.> > The court
[http://howappealing.law.com/WebbVsPhiladelphia.pdf] held> that
requiring a religious exemption from Directive 78> would indeed create
an "undue hardship":> > The Directive's detailed standards with no
accomodation for> religious symbols and attire not only promote the need
for> uniformity, but also enhance cohesiveness, cooperation, and the>
esprit de corps of the police force. Prohibiting religious symbols> and
attire helps to prevent any divisiveness on the basis of> religion both
within the force itself and when it encounters the> diverse population
of Philadelphia.... Police Directive 78 is> designed to maintain
religious neutrality, but in this case in a> para-military organization
for the good not only of the police> officers themselves but also of the
public in general.> > References> > 1.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004591.html> >
_______________________________________________> Volokh mailing list>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh>
_______________________________________________> To post, send message
to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
options, or get password, see>
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> > Please
note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as> private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are> posted;
people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly> or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.> >
_______________________________________________> To post, send message
to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> > Please
note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_________________________________________________________________
With Windows Live Hotmail, you can personalize your inbox with your
favorite color.
www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0607
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
