Christopher Polk And Fedex's Religious Beliefs

720 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Importance of religion in the workplace

Does the style of your hair truly represent a religious belief, or does it hinder how a company is viewed by it customers? If you look at it from the view of the company and how it feels you should look to represent the organization, hairstyle can be subject being labeled as not business or professional in nature. In the case of Christopher Polk and FedEx, Mr. Polk decided that he would grow his hair out into dreadlocks based on a decision to follow the beliefs of Rastafarian (Bethel, 2017). Mr. Polk at already worked for FedEx and knew their policy on grooming, especially when it comes to being in a position that interact with the customers of the company. He knew that the company did not approve of that style of hair, but when he watched …show more content…

In this case FedEx seems to have tried different approaches to work with Mr. Polk to allow him to keep the hairstyle. One way was to offer him a different position that did not have him dealing with customers. However, this also meant that Mr. Polk would have to take a pay cut, which he did not want to do. FedEx then told Mr. Polk that he needs to cut his hair to meet the grooming standards of a “reasonable style” or take another position (Bethel, 2017). Mr. Polk refused both options, so at that time FedEx terminated him based on violation of grooming policy. Also, during this time FedEx terminated six other employees for the same reasons but does not go into specifics about if it was based on hairstyles or other grooming issues. The issue and questions now are, did FedEx have the right to fire Mr. Polk, and did they violate his religious practice in doing …show more content…

One question that needs to be answered is should Mr. Polk be allowed be allowed to violate company policy on grooming based on his religious proclamation? Yes, based on the Title VII definition of a belief under religious preference which allows Mr. Polk to have the dreadlock hairstyle. However, the company tried diverse ways to accommodate him in the sense they did not want him interacting with customers. The company could have tried to develop an alternate with maybe him wearing hair cover while working that was presentable so that the customers did not see his hair. If he still refused, then I believe the company should have the right to terminate his employment because they tried to accommodate his belief and he

Show More
Related

  • Mary Myers V. New York Transit Authority Case Study

    1264 Words  | 3 Pages

    In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any hiring, terminating, and other terms and conditions of employment utilized as means of religious discrimination against an employees is prohibited. Unless, the workers religious request was causing their employer undue hardship. These acts are mandated that employers reasonably accommodate their full time employees’. Reasonable

    Read More

  • Comparing Guilt In Macbeth And The Social Network

    1364 Words  | 3 Pages

    He

    Read More

  • Case Study Of Mamma Jo's Pizza '

    1265 Words  | 3 Pages

    b) If Ahmad were terminated for refusing to shave his beard, he could bring the potential claim of religious discrimination against Mamma Jo’s Pizza under Title VII. In order for Ahmad to claim religious discrimination, he needs to show three things in order to establish and prove a prima facie case for disparate treatment. First, he must show that he holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a Mamma Jo’s employment requirement. Next, he has to inform Mamma Jo’s about the conflict. Finally, he needs to prove that he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting no beard employment requirement.

    Read More

  • Case Study Of Abercrombie And Fitch Case

    1462 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other

    Read More

  • Examples Of Maturity In Catcher In The Rye

    733 Words  | 2 Pages

    he

    Read More

  • Theme Of Dreams In John Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    He

    Read More

  • Fedex Dress Code Case Study

    1196 Words  | 3 Pages

    They wanted him to cut his hair, which went against his religious beliefs. This may have been a valid request if they could have demonstrated a safety or health issue associated with the hairstyle. If the company could have demonstrated a safety issue associated with the policy, an exception to the policy for an employee would be considered undue hardship (Marcum & Perry, 2010). In this case, FedEx wanted him to cut his hair to maintain a professional image, not for safety reasons. FedEx also offered Polk a different job position, which gave him no direct contact with the customers. If he took this job position, he would have to take a cut in pay. An employee should not have to change job positions or pay cut because of their religious beliefs. Polk refused both options was terminated by the company for failure to comply with the dress code policy. This is a form of religious discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

    Read More

  • Latter-Day Saints and Religious Discrimination: A Legal Perspective

    1435 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.

    Read More

  • Hobby Lobby: Managing Conflict Between Religion and Human Resource Management

    1378 Words  | 3 Pages

    Managing Conflict Between Religion and Human Resource Management Legal/Ethics: Hobby Lobby. Introduction and Purpose In Matters of Faith: Making a Good Faith Effort to Accommodate, Patricia Digh writes, “Religion is often an important aspect of a person’s identity” (shrm.org). She continues, “Religious devotion and diversity are on the rise in the United States, and the combination of these trends is creating new challenges and new demands for employers. As a result, handling employees’ future requests for religious accommodation may require Human Resource (HR) professionals to demonstrate greater sensitivity, tolerance and understanding of various religious beliefs”.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of A Call To Action By Jimmy Carter

    1777 Words  | 4 Pages

    he

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis: Understanding Religion in the Workplace

    775 Words  | 2 Pages

    Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of religion and requires an employer to make reasonable efforts to accommodate religious practices of employees unless doing so would cause undue hardship to employer. Overall the number of EEOC cases with regard to religious discrimination has nearly doubled from 1997 where the reported cases were 1709 annually to 3721 cases in 2012 (US EEOC, 2012). The rise of cases in the US is primarily due to further diversity in the workplace and the employees embracing expressions of faith. Examples of religious discrimination in the workplace are varied from the basis of one’s dress or clothing, refrain from working Sabbath or religious holidays or antagonism between cultural or religious groups leading to harassment. Management strategies need to be identified and discussed with employees in the same manner as other components of employer’s diversity policy. The following is an example of a request for time off work to observe the Sabbath. In EEOC v. Thompson Contracting, Grading, Paving, and Utilities, Inc., No. 11-1897, the EEOC sued the company for failing to accommodate a request to not work Saturdays made by an employee who alleged he followed the Hebrew Israelite faith (Jones and Erickson, 2013). After Mr. Yisrael refused to work three different Saturdays, Thompson terminated his employment. Mr. Yisrael then filed a complaint with the EEOC. The job as a dump truck driver was infrequently called to work Saturdays but did so due to recent weather conditions. The employer would have had to hire substitute drivers for the time frame in order to cover his shift. In so doing, the employer would be incurring additional costs beyond normal ...

    Read More

  • Macbeth

    356 Words  | 1 Pages

    he

    Read More

  • Lord of the Flies by William Golding

    797 Words  | 2 Pages

    He

    Read More

  • Persuasive Speech Outline On Religious Freedom

    660 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the end, Phillips lost the case, because it went against the antidiscrimination laws. Phillips is allow the freedom to express his belief, however, when he opens his business to the public, he is not permitted to use his belief to discriminate (Healy, J. 2015).

    Read More

  • Marion Young Responsibility For Justice

    1176 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rogers v. American Airlines, 527 F.Supp. 229, 232 (1981). Further he stated, “An all-braided hair style is an “easily changed characteristic,” and, even if socioculturally associated with a particular race or nationality, is not an impermissible basis for distinctions in the application of employment practices by an employer.”

    Read More

More about Christopher Polk And Fedex's Religious Beliefs

Open Document