Human Resource Blog

Dress Code in Kansas

	HR Management
Confidential Employee Folder Confidential Employee Medical Folder Job File Worksheet Folder Daily EEO Applicant Flow Log Workplace Information Sheets Request to Inspect Personnel Files

	Labor Laws
Complete State & Federal Labor Law Posters 1 Year Compliance Protection Plan State ONLY Labor Law Posters Federal Labor Law Posters

A female employee who is Muslim wants to wear a headscarf at work in Kansas.  I say it’s not appropriate and doesn’t fit our dress code.  Who is right?

The federal courts, in a number of cases, have shown support for an Islamic woman’s right to wear a headscarf or other clothing that protects her modesty at work in Kansas.

The federal law that prohibits companies from discriminating against people because of their religion is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It includes discrimination in firing, hiring, as well as other conditions and terms of employment.

As an example, an Islamic woman in Phoenix was fired by a car rental agency for refusing to remove her headscarf during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month.  After filing a claim of religious discrimination with the EEOC, the woman received $287,000.  This amount included lost wages, back pay, and a $250,000 penalty for the law violation.

According to the law, companies have to make reasonable accommodations for an employees’ sincerely held religious practices or beliefs. Employers are only exempt from this requirement if doing so would place an undue hardship on the company. 

Usually, making exceptions to dress codes constitutes reasonable accommodations, according to numerous court cases.  Two Muslim employees in a New Jersey town, for example, filed suit against their employer because the town’s dress code required male employees to be clean-shaven.  The two men argued that their religion required them to have beards, and the courts ruled in their favor. 

In some cases when employee or public safety is at risk, courts have upheld some dress code restrictions.  For an employee working in an area with open sparks, having a beard could very well present a fire hazard.  The courts, in this situation, would probably support the employer’s right to require employee’s to be clean-shaven.  However, the courts might require the employer to reassign the employee to another position, assuming that one was available, and the employee was qualified to perform the duties of the job.

In situations where altering the dress code does not present an undue hardship, employers should sit down with employees to work out a compromise regarding an alternate uniform.  JH