Human Resource Blog

Dress Code in Oregon

	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 Oregon.  I say it’s not appropriate and doesn’t fit our dress code.  Who is right?

Various federal court cases have supported an Islamic woman’s right to wear clothing that protects her modesty at work in Oregon, based on religious grounds.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII of that act, is a federal law making it illegal for employers to discriminate against any people because of their religion. 

The law states that employers have to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices.  The only time that employers do not have to comply is if doing so would place an undue hardship on them.  Of course, the law only applies to an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs.

Making exceptions to dress codes most always constitutes a reasonable accommodation, according to a number of court cases.  As an example, two Muslim men who worked for a town in New Jersey sued their employer because the dress code required all men to be clean-shaven.  The courts ruled in their favor, stating that making an exception to the dress code was reasonable, in this instance. 

An undue hardship might result if reasonable accommodations become a significant burden for an employer.  If a religious accommodation required a company to hire an additional full-time employee, it would constitute an undue hardship.  The law applies different sets of standards of undue hardship to larger companies than it does to smaller companies. 

Courts have upheld some dress code restrictions whenever employee or public safety are involved.  For employees who work in areas with open sparks, for example, a beard would probably present a fire hazard.  In such a situation, courts would most likely uphold an employer’s right to require employees to be clean-shaven, or to wear protective face gear.  In situations such as this, courts might require the employee to be reassigned to a different job, if one happened to be available, and if the employee was qualified to fill the position. JH