religious accomodation

pat hawkins · March 2004

We are changing or ID badges. One employee refuses to have her photo placed on hers for religious reasons. "They" believe that photos take away a part of one's soul, thus diminishing one's life, life goals, etc. Has anyone had to deal with this before? Thanks.

Pat Hawkins
KC Library

Don D · March 2004

I'd be interested to know what religion advocates that. I have seen it in Old Western's about Native Americans who were opposed to photography. That could be a fact. But, I would suggest that your safety and security policy is overriding in this instance. If it is a condition of employment that employees wear photo ID badges, then the employee is not qualified to work any longer. This goes beyond accommodation. Perhaps the Forum Administrator should move this question to the appropriate area and notify you. Good Luck.

Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

Balloonman · March 2004

I would ask like Don said what religion, and put a few minutes in researching it. But no picture, no job. Simple as that.
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

System · March 2004

Is the employee serious? A religious accommodation must be made (in other circumstances) if it is a "sincerely held" belief. There are other criteria for defining a religion but it doesn't look like any of them apply here.

No company has to sacrifice safety or security for religious accommodations.

Whatever · March 2004

I am going to assume that this a seriously held belief. However, reasonable accomodation cannot include sacrificing the safety and security of other workers. Therefore, either she gets her picture put on an ID badge or she gets terminated.

Parabeagle · March 2004

The key word here is REASONABLE accommodation. Employers are not required to accommodate requests that are unreasonable and a compromise of your company's safety and security, in my opinion, is not reasonable. No badge, no job. Of course, you may still wind up fighting this out with the EEOC or her lawyer, but that's the cost of doing business. Good luck.

deniseE · March 2004

what we have done is adopt our depatment of transportation's exemption for pictures. It's a pretty strict standard that no one meets...so it's not been a problem.

Rockie · March 2004

Seriously, I have heard of this before. I don't know what religious sect this belongs to, but in Charleston, South Carolina there are people who make baskets and sell them on the streets down by the Market. When you take a tour down there, the guides will tell you not to take pictures of these folks as they feel it steals part of their soul. This was the first time I had ever heard of this.

I feel if it is for the safety and security of the workplace, the employee will have to comply with having their picture taken; otherwise, I don't know what else you could do in lieu of pictures.

Whirlwind · March 2004

I think the people in South Carolina you're talking about are probably Gullah, which I thought was more of an ethnicity/culture/language than a religion...but in any event you can Yahoo or Google "gullah" and get tons more information. It's a fascinating culture.

Anyway, regarding the question, I don't think refusal to wear an ID badge will fly on either religious accommodation grounds or on racial/ethnic discrimination grounds.

Balloonman · March 2004

Rockie you are better than me.....I would be getting out the zoom lens to capture me some soul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

Cinderella · March 2004

I have heard of this as well - but in a cultural/ethic context and not a religious one. I have also heard that in some Asian cultures pictures are never taken of three people - only two or four and above. Has to do with something about someone who appears in the middle of a picture of three is destined to die next.

I agree with the others as far as safety and security go - no picture, no job.

System · March 2004

Do you remember the story about the Muslim lady who refused to remove her veil for a DMV photo? It was on the news and everything, within the last year or so. She said it went against her religious beliefs to expose her face. She didn't get the license. The same goes for your situation. No photo, no badge, no job.

blw · March 2004

I believe the Amish are opposed to having their pictures taken. Back in Pennsylvania, you hear it frequently. When you see pictures of Amish people, it is usually their back or from a distance.

I agree your security procedures take precedence, but one thing to think about. The EEOC would probably look at the reasonableness of the security. In other words, does the level of security you require match your industry, etc.

Balloonman · March 2004

If it a bigger company, it is reasonable to expect to be able to identify those entering the building as employees, or to be able to identify non-employees.
In these times of workplace violence and such the arguement of what is or is not reasonable has shifted.
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

JM in ATL · March 2004

OK, this may be way out in left field, but if the badge requires a "picture" of her, does it have to be a photo?

What I am getting at is could she, at her own expense, have a portrait sketched of her and have that on the badge?

And, what does she do for a drives license? Does she not drive?

Like others I have heard of this as a cultural belief anywhere from the Gullah's to Aboriginies.

Let us know how it works out...

Don D · March 2004

Yes, or perhaps use a quaint New Orleans shop to do a mosaic tile caricature of the employee, something in pastels, with gold leaf and at company expense.

........

Nor do I think it is within the purview of the EEOC to question whether or not a company's safety/security policy is reasonable since there is no possibility of such a policy having a disparate impact on a protected group.

Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)

rad · March 2004

Like the ones they do in the mall?

The Gullah and Amish are both mentioned and I may be wrong, in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected, but I do not think members of either group work in "mainstream" environments where photo IDs are required.

As so many others have mentioned, the word is "reasonable". When it comes to safety and security, the meaning of reasonable has to become very narrow. We now live in a world where we are encouraged to become paranoid and beef up security. My company encourages us to challange anyone we see on company property without a visible ID and rightfully so; the wrong person could do serious damage. I would not back down on this one.

Crout · April 2004

I don't recall any of my Amish relatives ever mentioning a prohibition on having their picture taken. However, I DO remember them complaining quite loudly about the rude, obnoxious tourists who had no respect for their privacy.

religious accomodation

Comments