You will prepare and submit a term paper on Segregating Workplace by Religion by Davinder S. Sidhu. Your paper should be a minimum of 1250 words in length.

You will prepare and submit a term paper on Segregating Workplace by Religion by Davinder S. Sidhu. Your paper should be a minimum of 1250 words in length. In his article, Sidhu firstly postulates, “Many employers use dress codes to keep visibly religious employees out of sight” (Sidhu, 2015). Among the most common explanations is the hardship to a business: strangely looking personnel would push away customers. It’s also the first point to Sidhu to argue. He brings the example of a What Would You Do? hidden-camera episode, when actors played a religious discrimination situation when hiring in a restaurant. Real presented customers took a side of those disseminated. However, socially approved a religious look at a workplace may still have a specific governmental law on a subject. There’s Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which permits employers “to avoid hiring visibly religious applicants who do not conform to the employers’ dress code or “look” (Sidhu, 2015). Specifically, it requires employers not of cutting out candidates with visible religious signs, but to “reasonably accommodate” them when hiring, “unless the employer can prove that such accommodation would present an “undue hardship” (Sidhu, 2015). Sidhu sees this law as an opportunity for candidates’ discrimination.

Moreover, Title VII allows employers to regulate a public presence of exercisers of different religions. With a view of a current Supreme Court case of a Muslim woman Samantha Elauf, who was “not recommended for a position” in Abercrombie Kids company due to her wearing a religious in nature headscarf, Sidhu argues all four main employers’ reasons for such a practice. When firstly, Abercrombie Company says they would reject a candidate with “any other headgear,” Sidhu points, that religiously motivated clothing is a specific case (Sidhu, 2015). Title VII obligates employers to “accommodate reasonably” to employees who cannot change their clothing because of their religious beliefs. Thus, employers should treat religious clothing differently from other headgears. Secondly, it’s the already mentioned cutout practice reasoned by a customers’ preference. Despite that such a preference may be untrue, also “a purely customer-driven decision making makes no qualitative difference in the civil rights context,” and thus, employers still act in a discriminating way (Sidhu, 2015). Third, by reinforcing a dress code with no accommodation to individuals, employers reinforce majoritarian beliefs and create situations when some people are expected not to take some positions. Forth, Sidhu sees that Title VII’s obligation to a “reasonable accommodation” may be used against those visible religious candidates in the process of accommodation.