S/O "No Skirts" Policy VS No pants policy in frum agencies

peanut butter c

Fri, May 26 2017, 12:51 pm

debsey wrote:

They hired her, thereby preventing her from taking on other employment, then terminated her, not based on performance, but based on following a dress code that is A) Not a universal standard of safety and B) would constitute a violation of her religious principles if followed.

She's suing for wrongful termination. That's well within the purview. IMHO, she has a good case, and I'll be watching closely.

My prediction is that it will be settled out of court, she will receive relatively low compensation + costs, and will be reinstated in her job.

Did they outright refuse to work with her and come up with some sort of compromise before they fired her? For all we know, they may have told her that she can wear a short skirt above trousers but she refused to do that. We also don't know anything about their insurance coverage and if it requires for paramedics to wear pants which would make wearing a skirt a liability (what if she is in a dangerous building that is about to collapse and is in the middle of lifting a patient and something falls on her pinning her skirt and traps her? Who would be responsible if anything happens to her or the patient?). I would also like to know if she spoke to her Rav about it to see if she could get a hetter before she approached the hospital. It should be interesting to see the outcome of this case.

mamaleh

Fri, May 26 2017, 1:12 pm

amother wrote:

You are conflating religion with culture. It is not culturally required for Jewish women to wear a skirt,it is only an Orthodox requirement and therefore becomes a religious cusom rather then a cultural custom and the govt cannot legally enforce a religious custom. And lots of these kids get services from multiple agencies and other agencies do not enforce a religious dress code bc it's illegal to do that while accepting govt funding. So service providers do wear pants in the kids home and there is nothing anyone can do about it other than pay for services out of pocket which is expensive. Why is it acceptable for a Jewish agency to enforce a religious dress code onto secular employees using govt funding to pay for it? Would you be okay if Muslims do it and force their secular employees to wear hijabs using govt money to pay for the services?

In my understanding, a person's religion is part of their culture. The fact that this particular sensitivity originates from religion does not make it any less cultural. Many (if not most) cultures and cultural expectation have their initial origins in religion.

I still contend that this is just good customer service. And, yes, I would understand if an agency serving mostly muslims required female workers to cover their hair (I might not want to work for them, but I would understand). Do you have a problem with the agencies that look for and hire Yiddish speaking therapists? They are servicing a community that (for religious reasons) is more comfortable in that language, so it makes (business) sense to hire people who can accommodate that.

Now you might ask, where does it stop? How far should businesses go to accommodate a clients sensitivities? The answer is that it is up to the business. If they feel that making people comfortable with their services will improve their bottom line (or their results, or compliance with their recommendations) and they aren't asking employees to do anything illegal, immoral, or against their own religious beliefs then it is their decision. The fact that one of their customers is the federal/state government does not change that. (This is not the government requiring a dress code, it is a private provider who contracts with the government.)

amother

Taupe

Fri, May 26 2017, 2:17 pm

I work for a chassidishe school and have to dress differently than I would at any other work place. It bothers because I don't like that my own level of tznuis isn't accepted. I notice that some other non-chassidishe teachers kind of push the envelope more than the secular staff. I guess because they feel like their own standards as religious jews should be accepted. Of course there is the written and unwritten dress code, and if you want to feel respected and not have the students making very unpleasant comments about your outfits, you have to adhere to the unwritten code anyway.

Anyway, I really don't know. I would sure like to not have to wear pantyhose in an un-airconditioned building in August, but what can you do?

debsey

Fri, May 26 2017, 2:36 pm

peanut butter c wrote:

Obviously, I don't know anything about the case, more than I've read.

Just so you know, I don't think your example applies. She's not a paramedic on a rescue squad, she's a paramedic for a hospital, which means she's unlikely to be in that type of "building collapse" scenario. The paramedics who transport pts out of risky situations like collapsing buildings have a whole different level of training and certification. I imagine she wouldn't have applied for such a job, given her religious sensibilities.

In terms of healthcare compliance, having mandatory pants only isn't industry standard, (she's been an EMT in other places and this was never an issue for her).

I wish her the best.

amother

cornflower

Fri, May 26 2017, 3:37 pm

debsey wrote:

Shes suing for religious discrimination.

She's seeking no less than $25,000 for religious discrimination and get her job back. http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....93213

Those are reasonable damages... I was expecting a bigger number.

wondergirl

Fri, May 26 2017, 5:53 pm

amother wrote:

This article says that she was terminated a few hours into her orientation. I would assume that she signed a contract with them before she started orientation so how could they have terminated her without breaching the contract?

debsey

Sun, May 28 2017, 12:50 am

wondergirl wrote:

During a new employee orientation at a large hospital, often there are tons of papers to sign, all of which are conglomerated into a "code of conduct" type contract (there are industry specific terms but that's the gist)

So you might have a one hour orientation on the hospital's tolerance/non-discrimination policy, and then you sign a paper saying you were oriented into this policy and you now know it.

You might have an hour on sanitary practices and procedures, and then you sign a paper saying you have been made aware of them...

It's so the hospital can't be sued for not training you in these things.

I imagine as part of her orientation, they did the "uniform" policy and she said "But what are the reasonable accommodations for my religious observance?" and the supervisor said "None." so her orientation process was interrupted.

So, while she was "hired", she didn't complete orientation, which means her hiring never really took effect from a "breach of contract" perspective. It did, however, infringe on her religious rights. Hence the lawsuit. She's being quite fair in what she's requesting. This clearly isn't about a payday, it's about being allowed to do her job without any crisis of conscience.

DrMom

Sun, May 28 2017, 1:17 am

amother wrote:

An orthodox woman is suing a hospital over their "no skirts" policy because she believes that its religious discrimination. Many people have said that they should make an exception for her because of her religious beliefs even if it may be a liability for the hospital. My question is, should Frum agencies/companies who have religious dress codes for their employees (I.e. skirts for female employees etc.) make exceptions for non-frum/secular employees who do not wish to adhere to religious dress codes?

I think one major distinction here is the reason behind the dress codes.

The requirement to wear pants as opposed to skirts for a paramedic (or whatever she was) is a functional/safety issue. If this employee was unable to perform her job 100% and a patient did not receive the best care, or if she got her skirt caught in some equipment and sustained an injury as a result, the hospital could be liable.

The requirement to wear skirts in a frum office sounds more like an arbitrary religious requirement.

Of course, if the job itself is in a religious setting (a math teacher in a frum school, for example), then most employees would understand the reason for the dress code.

But I can see how it might be thought of as odd to have to wear a skirt if you have a desk job at a frum-owned insurance company, for example. I still think offices can set such a dress code, but to the employee affected by such a policy, it is likely to seem a lot more arbitrary and "unfair" (although perfectly legal, as far as I know).

marina

Sun, May 28 2017, 3:10 am

Most companies cannot discriminate based on gender, religion, etc. (Title VII law) Exceptions include religious organizations, such as schools, temples, etc.

Under this analysis, if an office company required all women to wear skirts, a Title VII claim of gender discrimination may work because the plaintiff would be able to show that she wasn't allowed to wear pants because of her gender. Had she been male, this rule would not have applied to her.

I think it could potentially be a meritorious case, depending obv on the facts.