Muslim Man Sues Business For Refusing To Shave His Beard Per Company Standards

You would be legally required to offer any reasonable accommodations based on religion and or disability as long as they are able to complete the task they are being hired for.

 

They can require that the beard be groomed and presentable, but they cannot require him to shave his beard if his religion requires him to keep his beard. There are some cases where reasonable accommodation in looks is not possible (modeling, acting, etc), but this is not one of those cases. The man's personal image is not sufficiently important or effected by the beard as a security guard. While there is some necessity for a look of authority, that is not sufficiently diminished by his beard to justify requiring him to shave it.

 

Yes.. and while I am pro Muslim I think this guy is working the system for a pay off... Like the Jewish accountant.

 

This is more than about a beard.

Many companies ban beards or other things for good reasons. It may be for presenting a professional appearance or safety.

Don't like it? Work somewhere else.

I don't think it's good for govt to control everything to this point.

 

You are still missing the point.. there is NO requirement in the Koran for men to wear beards.

If you are a waitress at the Ritz Carlton.. you can't wear nail polish other than clear.

Companies have the right to set dress codes according to their image.

 

Note; reasonable accommodations. Allowing a person to keep his beard is a reasonable accommodation, assuming the beard if groomed and presentable. Letting a severely mentally disabled person act as a security guard is not a reasonable accommodation if they cannot perform the job. It's the same reason maintenance companies aren't required to hire paraplegics to work on sewer lines--if they can't meet the physical requirements in that case, then they flat out can't perform the job and the accommodation would not be reasonable.

You might ask yourself who determines what is a reasonable accommodation and what is not. The answer to that is the EEOC and the courts.

 

Irrelevant. If his particular sect requires it for reasons not laid out in the Koran, that's still a religious reason and they're still required to allow him to keep it.

You do not have to belong to a major religion or sect to receive protection of your religious rights in the US.

 

a reasonable accomodation under what circumstances? in this circumstance allowing the man to keep his beard creates an undue burden on the employer as it causes the clients of the employer to NOT have confidence in the employers. therefore, they lose business.

 

Have you ever noticed that RNs don't wear nail polish..

 

This is entirely about a beard. A safety reason would be a justification for an absolute requirement for shaving a beard (and therefore the company wouldn't be required to make accommodations--they would be unreasonable accommodations at that point). A security guard does not need to wear air-tight safety equipment during his work--their preference for cleanly shaved looks is entirely a preference on their part and not required to perform the job adequately and safely. Therefore, a reasonable accommodation would be to require him to keep his beard well groomed and presentable.

 

a beard causes a loss of confidence???

 

That is entirely irrelevant and unprovable. His beard doesn't prevent him from doing his job. That is the only thing that has legal merit.

 

Again, we're talking about reasonable accommodations. In the case of RNs and nail polish, their job often requires them to touch patients' wounds, and therefore banning nail polish is reasonable. That's assuming that a nurse even had a legitimate religious objection to not wearing nail polish. AFAIK, there are no religions that require nail polish in the way that there are many religious groups that require men to have beards.

 

No, I'd just be skipping out 3 hours early on Friday, and who are you to tell me that my religious needs are unreasonable? Where exactly is this objective reasonable line? Is 1 hour reasonable? 2? Beard? Sounds like its another case of legislative ambiguity in the effort to gain more power for the government.

 

however, the employer disagrees with you. the beard does in fact create an undue burden on the employer as the guard is not able to perform as well as clean shaven male guards. what you are not acknowledging is appearance is a part of the security guard's job. why otherwise would they be dressed in uniforms? why not put security guards out in Hawaiian shirts, shorts and flip flops? appearance is very important in securing confidence in the clients.

 

There's quite a lot of examples of workplaces successfully dealing with Muslim prayer concerns. One example of a reasonable accommodation there is to allow or require them to work a shift on the weekends if they must take excessive time off on Fridays (effectively letting them trade working on one day for working on another, less religiously significant day), or requiring them to work extra hours during the rest of the week.

There isn't an objective line, it's up to the EEOC and the courts to decide. There's no way to effectively define objective limits for inherently complex issues like accommodations for disabilities and religious concerns.

 

I'll just leave this hear for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Body_Modification

 

Does it? Where did you study Islamic jurisprudence, Shaykh Kimaris? Al-Azhar? Qom?

And there is NOTHING in the Qur'an to interpret concerning beards...

 

Why do you get to determine if the reasoning for not having a beard is valid or not? Perhaps the owner believes that it offers him a competitive advantage to have a clean shaven staff.

 

And that's why the case has gone to court, so that disagreement can be resolved. That's the function of the EEOC and the courts.

Unless the company can provide solid evidence that this is the case, their belief is not sufficient cause to fire him.

I'm acknowledging that appearance is important, but I'm not willing to say that well-groomed beards are necessarily detrimental to an appearance of authority.

 

He may also think that having an all white staff may do the same. It doesn't mean he can do it though.

 

And it's more of the Obama administrations pro-Muslim b.s. too.

His religion does not make it necessary to have a beard.

There are all kinds of Moooslim men running around without beards. Namely one of the chief Moooslims who;s family is entrusted to keep and maintain Mecca.
http://www.kingabdullah.jo/





Anymore than PF requires posters too, or the Christian religion does.

So please spare us the discrimination bullcrap libs.

Whats next Christians and Jews going to be able to sue, because their boss made them work on Friday or Sunday? After all their religion and their God tells them to keep the Sabbath day holy.

Oh but you libs wouldn't support that now would we.

 

Maybe, often colored women that claim to be muslims wear 1050's Nun's habits.

 

Muslim prayers only take 12- 15 minutes...