When a Muslim woman who wears clothes covering her entire body except for her hands and face is the subject of comments and negative performance reviews by her trainers at work, does she have valid claims of disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation? A Pennsylvania court recently reviewed a case raising these issues. Its decision illustrates some of the principles behind Title VII.
What happened. “Alia” began her position as an income maintenance caseworker for the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare in May 2007. Alia is a Muslim woman who wears a Hijab, a garment that coves her entire body, except her hands and face. She was required, as are all the caseworkers, to complete a 1-year training course as a probationary employee before beginning her actual job interviewing applicants for public assistance benefits to determine their eligibility.
Alia claims that two of the trainers discriminated against her during that year. One trainer, when discussing the dress code, stated that head coverings were allowed only for religious purposes, and must be worn consistently because some women cover their hair as a “fad.” She claims that the trainers responded to non-Muslim’s questions in a more timely manner, and provided them with additional private training that she did not receive.
In late July, Alia informed her union representative that she believed she was being discriminated against, and followed up with an email containing details. The trainers gave Alia poor performance reviews over the course of her training and finally terminated her in November 2007. Alia brought a claim that she faced discrimination on the basis of age and religion and was retaliated against for her complaints. The Department claimed she was terminated because she was unable to perform duties critical to her job.
What the court said. The court held that Alia’s Title VII claims of disparate treatment and retaliation would stand because there were genuine issues of material fact to be decided, but her hostile work environment claim would be dismissed because the behavior of the trainers was not pervasive, threatening, or humiliating enough for a valid claim. Haqq v Pennsylvania Dep’t of Public Welfare, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 09-0042 (2010).
Point to remember. In order to comply with religious beliefs, a male employee may want to wear a beard or a female employee may want to cover her head. Employers may need to accommodate the dress and grooming habits based on a religious practice or belief, unless the employer has a policy against the dress or grooming habits that is justified by a business necessity.