I informed my Human Resources (HR) department at work that we now have our 503c status.  She informed me that I am still not able to openly practice my religous beliefs of modifications.  I am not sure if she is right.  I thought Chapter 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 included a clause about employers had to allow flexabilty to let the religous types be able to practice their religion while still in the work environment.

The last thing I want is another Cloutier vs. Costco which was a total disgrace and nightmare (my opinion of the results of that case).  Who knows exactly were we stand with our employers who refuse to acknowledge us?  I am not looking to take any legal actions, but to find out if I or my employer have the issue right.

Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

• Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.
• Employees cannot be forced to participate — or not participate — in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
• Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.
• An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
• Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
• Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

Statistics

In Fiscal Year 2006, EEOC received 2,541 charges of religious discrimination. EEOC resolved 2,387 religious discrimination charges and recovered $5.7 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

thursdayforme said:

Work knows I have been involved with CoBM for awhile.  Me disclosing that fact is nothing new around the office. 

What conserns me is that I was told that CoBM was not a valid organization, therefore I would not be recognized.  Honestly, it is me versus a head supervisor that has very very outdated traditional values unless it involves his personal life directly.

Did you read through the Title VII that I posted? The fact is, you're in a very new religion. In my opinion there are two ways the CoBM can react. They can either say, “Yes, we've been around for 8 years but there was mismanagement, and unethical issues with the prior so we cleaned house and are beginning again and will try to not make the same mistakes, but all we'll be looking at is things from this point of new management” or “We've started over and nothing else exists with us save from this point forward”. The first response seems to be the most ethical and honest approach, this said, the CoBM does not have a good reputation. It now has to repair that reputation by doing things in a manner that will gain positive stride.

Going into the boss beligerant with “You've got to accept my piercings and tats” isn't the most beneficial way to work with anyone, regardless. The problem with the Costco incident does not fall into failing with the CoBM, it falls into failing with a young lady that didn't wish to compromise. (They offered to let her wear some sort or retainer or transparency, and she completely refused to do any of those things). That could have been a landmark case if she had agreed to the compromises Costco offered, put body modification on the map with a landmark case of compromise, and opened up the way for change. But the young lady chose to snub her nose at it and bring a very bad name to the CoBM, and solidified the already preconceived notion of people with modifications in the minds of the American people.

That said, we have a chance as a community to repair that damage, change the attitude, and potentially change the EEOC laws. That takes time though and it takes the right attitude.

Having watched the pagan community struggle I can tell you it is very difficult for alternative religions to be taken seriously if their members act in this manner. It also takes a ton of court battles, and even then it doesn't always mean we'll win every one of them. I've watched the battles fought by Wiccans to gain their rights. It doesn't mean though that they automatically get special treatment. If you read through the Title VII, it is worded in such a way that if the employer deems that something would be seen as special treatment that other employees would not receive then they can deny it. For example, let's say your work has a dress code policy as many places do, and one of them says you may not wear more then one piece of jewelry (I've actually seen this in the rules at one school where I worked), then you don't have a case. The fact is, you chose to work with those rules the moment you signed the contract and you must respect it religion or not. The CoBM, regardless of the past, is a new religion. It's under new management with a very short shelf life and that means there aren't yet enough cases, nor the positive publicity that many employers would be familiar with. And you're employer is right, she doesn't have to acknowledge your religion. She's not supposed to, that would be preferential treatment. And, as you can tell from the language of this section, it is a very thin window in which someone would need to accomodate. Dress code issues are very loosely defined, and the terms are ambigious that your employer could honestly just use the defense that it would hurt their business. Now, although that seems unfair, let us constructively think about this in a few scenarios:

Scenario 1: Employer's Reason: It would hurt my business. Investigation: They have a conservative base of population they serve and business has declined since you've been in sales with these. Outcome: They have a right to protect their interest.

Scenario 2: Employer's Reason: It is a safety issue. Investigation: They have you working in an environment of machinary that pose potential risks if jewelry of any kind is worn. Other employees cannot wear wedding bands and so forth. Outcome: They have the right to ask you not to wear jewelry because they ask other employees.

Although the first scenario can be argued, it won't change by being beligerant with HR, the boss, or others in the company. It will change by working with the EEOC using an attorney to change the wording of the rules. Though, that said, it will probably be a long time coming and people must be willing to take it to a legal action. Otherwise, we become nothing more then someone whining. We must also be willing to accept “reasonable” requests and compromises. No great battles in civil rights were ever one without them. It takes lots of small compromises and reasonable requests to change things.

However, back to religion, do not think that other religions are given somehow special treatment by companies since they are orthodox or mainstream religions. If someone wants to take a religious day outside of your typical standard holidays, they generally must use their vacation time or sick time to do so. And most of them find this reasonable. A friend my husband worked with was Muslim and he simply used his vacation time to take his holidays and worked traditional Christian holidays (with holiday ot pay, so that was a perk). He also used his regular break times for his prayer times. We could not possibly as a capitalistic society exist by giving everyone paid holidays on their religious dates because we do have a seperation of church and state. Yes, it's infiltrated with standard holidays but most places refer to them as winter holidays, spring, etc. It's just a part of how our country evolved, be it right or wrong. If we want to truly push having seperation of church and state you will have to say goodbye to all of those “standard” holidays which is typically 10 per calendar year in all businesses. I can't see anyone wanting to give those up because most people take them regardless of their religion or not. See, there is always a trade off.

The issue facing the CoBM right now regarding all of this is that this particular religion is more about how we “appear”. We do not have any set tangiable tenents. Yes, there is a mission statement on the front page, and a list of beliefs, but they do not on the outside translate into “This person needs a special diet” or “This person cannot work days because of xyz”, or “This person cannot work with meats because its against their diet plan” (I actually do know that strict muslim women cannot touch pork and have seen them as cashiers request someone else to ring up the meat). That is what the EEOC currently looks at by lateral moves, accomodations, and so forth. What the CoBM is looking at doing is something very new to the public as far as religion goes. It differs from wearing a head covering, full cover, and so forth. It will take time to help others understand and it will take the community as a whole coming together and deciding what exactly they want their employers to “accept” and for what reason.

I see this as an excellent starting place. Again, check with a local attorney and have them review the current policies at your work (I'm sure you have a copy of the rules), and see if they indeed are violating your religion. If so, then take it up legally. If not, then compromise.

if any of this has been repeated in the previous posts please disregard. we all are familiar with the mistakes of the old Church- as a very active member i went to the EEOC on peoples behalf countless times. it always worked. I didn't advertise that i would fight for them but  i was obligated to help those that found me out and ask for help. now that it is for real i anticipate many more trips/calls to the EEOC. specially if/when my minister app is finished.

bbirdemann said:

if any of this has been repeated in the previous posts please disregard. we all are familiar with the mistakes of the old Church- as a very active member i went to the EEOC on peoples behalf countless times. it always worked. I didn't advertise that i would fight for them but  i was obligated to help those that found me out and ask for help. now that it is for real i anticipate many more trips/calls to the EEOC. specially if/when my minister app is finished.

The old Church, bbirdemann, you were everywhere involved.  You are a true example of a member!  I hope your involvement here, we will honor you for staying with CoBM! 

i agree, i have shown time and again that i am a hard working employee.  and in return my boss has stuck up for me about my mods and allowed to me to go as far as i have.  and even now that corprate has been involved and i have been forced to hide my mods, i am more then willing to do so out of respect for my boss.  since he stood up and fought for me, i am more then happy to abide by rules that are out of his control.  and to this day i prove everyday that no matter what i look like im a great person and i do the best job i possibly can.  and so far it has seemed to work wonders for me

I worked in the construction company for 10 years and when I got my first facial piercing I was discriminated against, however my boss knew the good job that I do and he actually told me that it gave me flare, but I have since been laid off and have been forced to change my careers and I will now work in healthcare and in order for me to graduate I have to do so many hours of an externship and some of the hours are at my local hospital and you can not have any facial piercings but you can have tats and that really pisses me off, because I am a very hard worker and I value my job and I dont think I should be discriminated against because of my facial piercings or tats, what is the difference from a amish person or a jew wearing the hats (montoe, not sure) or a muslim or indian wearing their clothes they wear. But I have to do what I have to do to get a job and take care of my family right?