The phenomenon of prohibiting employees from expressing religious attire in the workplace involves a complex interplay of different parties and issues related to human rights protection. Addressing and resolving this issue holds significant implications for advancing the cause of global religious freedom.
Objective
Through an analysis of common features in eleven representative cases from English and American legal systems, the author further discusses the challenges faced by employees expressing their religious attire in the workplace, and the institutional and societal issues reflected through these decisions.
Methods
Through the application of a case study approach, this study analyzes eleven representative cases from both English and American legal systems in the early twenty-first century, probing into the persistent nature of religious discrimination in the workplace.
Results
The research reveals that the ways in which managers prohibit employees from expressing religious attire in the workplace are categorized into direct and indirect prohibitions, and the related systems of religious discrimination evolve over time. However, when employees oppose the managers’ discriminatory policies based on religion, they often face the dilemma of dismissal and difficulty in seeking legal redress.
Conclusion
To confront this challenge, governments need to prioritize safeguarding equal rights among different religious and non-religious individuals when refining legislation. Furthermore, adhering to the principle of state neutrality, legal obligations shall not be arbitrarily attached to religious expression unless such expression poses a concrete threat to specific public interests. Managers, in formulating workplace management policies, should likewise adhere to these principles.
FrostJScheitleCPEcklundEH, et al.The role of region and religious tradition in predicting individuals expressions of faith in the workplace. Religions2023; 14: 1–17.
2.
LichtermanP. Religion in public action: from actors to settings. Soc Theory2012; 30: 15–36.
3.
CintasCHeliotYSprimontPA. Religious accommodation in France: decoding managers’ behaviour. Employ Relat2021; 43: 83–107.
4.
SampsonHTurgoNCadgeW, et al.Harmony of the seas? Work, faith, and religious difference among multinational migrant workers on board cargo ships. Ethnic Racial Stud2020; 43: 287–305.
5.
van der NollJRohmannASaroglouV. Societal level of religiosity and religious identity expression in Europe. J Cross-Cult Psychol2018; 49: 959–975.
6.
LimSKimST. The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and success of foodservice business: effects of religion. Serv Bus2020; 17: 429–448.
7.
SuK. Does religion benefit corporate social responsibility (CSR)? Evidence from China. Corp Soc Responsib Env Manag2019; 26: 1206–1221.
8.
AstrachanJAstrachanCBCampopianoG, et al.Values, spirituality and religion: family business and the roots of sustainable ethical behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2020; 163: 637–645.
9.
ShenNSuJ. Religion and succession intention-Evidence from Chinese family firms. J Corp Financ2017; 45: 150–161.
10.
SavA. The role of religion in work-life interface. Int J Hum Resour Manag2019; 30: 3223–3244.
11.
ChangM-CChenP-FLeeT-H, et al.The effect of religion on psychological resilience in healthcare workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Front Psychol. 2021; 12: 628894.
12.
NasibDNasibDJinC, et al.Social undermining at the workplace: how religious faith encourages employees who are aware of their social undermining behaviors to express more guilt and perform better. J Bus Ethics2023; 187: 371–383.
13.
RichardsonCRammalHG. Religious belief and international business negotiations: does faith influence negotiator behaviour?Int Bus Rev2017; 27: 401–409.
14.
ChoudhuryKaulSSupriyadiOFahleviN. Muslim Indonesian women entrepreneurs: a factor analysis of business performance. J Islam Mark2023; 14: 3186–3207.
15.
FernandezEFCoyleA. Sensitive issues, complex categories, and sharing festivals: malay muslim students’ perspectives on interfaith engagement in Malaysia. Polit Psychol2019; 40: 37–53.
16.
HuangPZ. A dialogue on the overall situation of religious studies in contemporary China. Int J Sino-Western2020; 19: 1–30.
Lips-WiersmaMMillsC. Coming out of the closet: negotiating spiritual expression in the workplace. J Manag Psychol2002; 17: 183–202.
20.
GebertDBoernerSKearneyE, et al.Expressing religious identities in the workplace: analyzing a neglected diversity dimension. Hum Relat2014; 67: 543–563.
21.
WassermanVFrenkelM. The politics of (in)visibility displays: ultra-orthodox women manoeuvring within and between visibility regimes. Hum Relat2020; 73: 1609–1631.
22.
VanLaerKEssersC. The regulation of religion by secular work practice: exploring muslim employees’ performance of religious practice. J Manag2024; 50: 1–27.
23.
ThomsonRAJrBolgerDDanielsD, et al.The relationship between workplace Status and workplace religious expression. J Sci Stud Religion2023; 62: 126–143.
24.
SajjanMW. Prioritizing religious freedoms: islam, Pakistan, and the human rights discourse. Muslim World J Hum Rights2023; 20: 47–68.
GaillardH. Managing religion at work: a necessary distinction between words and deeds. A multiple case study of the postures facing religious expression in French organizations. Employ Relat2022; 44: 755–763.
28.
HeliotYGleibsIHCoyleA. Religious identity in the workplace: a systematic review, research agenda, and practical implications. Hum Resour Manag2020; 59: 153–173.
29.
MannanF. Veil as religious expression: a sociological study of university students in Bangladesh. J Ecum Stud2022; 57: 197–219.
30.
CreswellJW. Research design: qualitative and quantitative approach. London: Publications, 1994, p.62.
31.
GadieP. Episcopal liturgical pastoral governance: a restricted reception. New Blackfriars2018; 101: 519–537.
32.
PedrioliCA. Cakes and communication: a trans-atlantic conversation between the U.S. and U.K. supreme courts on the tension between anti-discrimination law and the freedoms of religion and speech. Univ Bologna Law Rev2022; 7: 183–204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit [homepage on the Internet]. Equal Emp. v. Sunbelt; 2008 [updated 2008 Mar 31; cited 2023 Jan 02], https://casetext.com/case/equal-emp-v-sunbelt#B.
European Court of Human Rights [homepage on the Internet]. EWEIDA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM; 2013 [updated 2013 Jan 15; cited 2023 Jan 02], https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/37.html.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [homepage on the Internet]. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores; 2014 [updated 2014 Feb 26; cited 2023 Jan 02], https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketfiles/14-86.htm
United Nations [homepage on the Internet]. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; 2015 [updated 2015 Sep 25; cited 2024 Jan 14], https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
46.
VaníčkováRBílekS. Employee privacy protection versus interests and property employer. Int J Law Manag2021; 63: 537–552.
47.
CashmanP. The role of judges in managing complex civil litigation. Syd Law Rev2020; 42: 141–154.
48.
YanL. Religious beliefs: freedom and limitations. Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press, 2012, pp.34–35.
49.
GavrilovaYVAlbovAPGardanovaZR, et al.Practices for ensuring religious security: psychological and legal aspects. AD ALTA: J Interdiscip Res2020; 10: 80–82.
50.
DruhamWCScharffsBG.Law and religion: national, international and comparative perspective. Los Angeles: Aspen Publishing, 2019, p.564.
51.
WangX. Religious studies in written constitutions. Beijing: China Democracy and Legal System Press, 2014, p.45.
52.
SagivLRoccasS. How do values affect behavior? Let me count the ways. Pers Soc Psychol Rev2021; 25: 295–316.
53.
Mark HillQCChristopherGNormanD, et al.Religion and law in the United Kingdom. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
54.
MillerTYúdiceG.Cultural policy. New York: Sage Publications Ltd, 2002, p.33.
55.
ThrosbyD. Economic values and live performing arts. Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2001, p.76.
56.
MoulinierP. Politique culturelle et décentralisation. Politique culturelle et décentralisation. 2002.
57.
ModoodTSealyT. Freedom of religion and the accommodation of religious diversity: multiculturalising secularism. Religions2021; 12: 868.
58.
NewmanS. Political theology and religious pluralism: rethinking liberalism in times of post-secular emancipation. Eur J Soc Theory2021; 24: 177–194.
59.
FukuyamaF. A country of their own: liberalism needs the nation. Foreign Aff2022; 101: 80.
60.
BeamanL. The transition of religion to culture in law and public discourse. London: Routledge, 2020, p.69.
61.
MurdockG. Citizens, consumers, and public culture. London: Routledge, 2016, p.35.
62.
JunR. A cultural policy study from an inter-disciplinary perspective. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2014, p.99.
63.
MulcahyKV. Public culture, cultural identity, cultural policy: comparative perspectives. Berlin: Springer, 2016, pp.22–25.
64.
BennettO. On religion and cultural policy: notes on the roman catholic church. Int J Cult Policy2009; 15: 155–170.
65.
KeatingMDavisG. The future of governance: policy choices. London: Routledge, 2000, pp.98–100.
66.
Abu-RasWSenzaiFLairdL, et al.The influence of religious identity, culture, and values on the practice of American Muslim physicians. Soc Sci2022; 11: 499.
67.
Ahlin MarcetaJ. An individualist theory of meaning. J Value Inquiry2023; 57: 41–58.
68.
JinX. The rational structure of limits on religious freedom: an analysis based on the constitutions of multiple countries. J Gansu Polit Sci Law Inst2016; 5: 128–137.
69.
WitteJNicholsJA. Religion and the American constitutional experiment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, p.163.
70.
StenlundMSlotteP. Forum internum revisited: considering the absolute core of freedom of belief and opinion in terms of negative liberty, authenticity, and capability. Hum Rights Rev2018; 19: 425–446.
71.
MarshallP. Institutional religious freedom: an overview and defense. London: Religions2021; 12: 364.
