Muslim Policewoman Barred from Wearing Khimar on the Job:

[Paul Finkelman]

It strikes me that her claim is not like Goldman's (which might be the
analogy that comes to mind), in that he wanted to wear something (a
skullcap under his uniform hat) that would not be visible to anyone most
of the time; the dissenters in that case made a strong argument that his
violation of the military rules was insignficant and could not affect
the military in any meaningful way.  It is also worth noting that an
Army Captain is likely to deal only  with people in the military, while
a police officer deals with the general public, which makes neutrality
all the more important.  How  far, one wonders, should one take this
argument.  Could an Amish Man claim the right to be a police officer in
Pennsylvania but not be forced to drive or ride in a squad car?  Would a
Quaker officer refuse to carry a weapon?  Could a male Orthodox Jewish
officer refuse to have a female partner in his squad car?  The demands
for special treatment based on religion might be endless.  

Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
     and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
pfink at albanylaw.edu
>>> VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu 06/13/07 7:51 PM >>>
	FYI, in case you're interested. 

-----Original Message-----
From: volokh-bounces at lists.powerblogs.com
[mailto:volokh-bounces at lists.powerblogs.com] On Behalf Of
notify at powerblogs.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:50 PM
To: volokh at lists.powerblogs.com
Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Muslim Policewoman Barred from
WearingKhimar on the Job:

Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Muslim Policewoman Barred from Wearing Khimar on the Job:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_06_10-2007_06_16.shtml#118177859
7


   The khimar is "a headpiece ... which covers the hair, forehead, sides
   of the head, neck, shoulders, and chest," but not, at least in this
   instance, the face.

   Philadelphia Police Department Directive 78 apparently prescribes a
   [1]uniform uniform, with no exceptions for any religious apparel or
   any religious symbols. The case suggests that the uniform requirement
   is broad enough to exclude ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday,
and
   therefore basically any non-uniform symbols.

   Police officer Kimberlie Webb claimed that Title VII of the Civil
   Rights Act of 1964 required the city to accommodate her religious
   practice by exempting her from the strict uniformity requirement, and
   letting her wear the khimar. Title VII does require employers to
   provide exemptions for employees whose religions conflict with
   generally applicable work rules, but not when granting such an
   exemption would create an "undue hardship" for the employer. Courts
   have set the "undue hardship" bar pretty low, so that anything "more
   than a de minimus cost" would constitute an "undue hardship" that the
   employer need not bear.

   The court [http://howappealing.law.com/WebbVsPhiladelphia.pdf] held
that requiring a religious exemption from Directive 78
   would indeed create an "undue hardship":

     The Directive's detailed standards with no accomodation for
     religious symbols and attire not only promote the need for
     uniformity, but also enhance cohesiveness, cooperation, and the
     esprit de corps of the police force. Prohibiting religious symbols
     and attire helps to prevent any divisiveness on the basis of
     religion both within the force itself and when it encounters the
     diverse population of Philadelphia.... Police Directive 78 is
     designed to maintain religious neutrality, but in this case in a
     para-military organization for the good not only of the police
     officers themselves but also of the public in general.

References

   1. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004591.html

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh at lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.