Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

International Business Machines Corporation

submitted by Hastings H. Huggins, Jr., Director, Equal Opportunity. Islamic Center of San Francisco, Inc.

539

[blocks in formation]

submitted by F. A. Yagmin, Jr., Director, Industrial Relations....

543

Levi Strauss & Company

submitted by Donna J. Goya, Personnel Department.

557

Lutheran Church in America

submitted by Charles V. Bergstrom, Executive Director, Office of Governmental Affairs

559

National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)

submitted by Floyd Robertson, Secretary of Public Affairs.......

561

National Conference of Christians and Jews, Inc. (Greater Detroit Round Table)

submitted by Robert M. Frehse, Consultant.

562

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U. S. A.

submitted by Dean M. Kelley, Executive for Religious and Civil Liberty-------New York Life Insurance Company

564

submitted by Virginia M. Keegan, Assistant Vice President

567

Polaroid Corporation

submitted by Harold S. Page, Assistant Vice President, Personnel

569

Quaker Oats Company

submitted by Stanley E. Birstein, Director, Employment Opportunity Programs.

571

R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company

submitted by Arthur C. Prine, Jr., Vice President.

573

Reformed Church in America

submitted by Joseph B. Muyskens, Secretary, Social Ministries..

575

Reynolds Aluminum

submitted by H. Paul Stuber, Director, Equal Opportunity Affairs

577

Safeway Stores, Inc.

submitted by Larry Taft, Director, Corporate Equal Opportunity Programs....

582

Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce

submitted by Michael Mackner and Jane Welch, Employers' Council

Legislative Committee...

591

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

submitted by J. J. Holley, Vice President, Personnel.

592

Solarz, The Honorable Stephen J., Member of The United States Congress...

594

Stump, The Honorable Bob, Member of The United States Congress.
Swett & Crawford

601

submitted by Harry D. Boyd, Senior Vice President & General Counsel...______ Union Oil Company of California

606

submitted by J. K. Russell, Manager, EEO Services.

607

[blocks in formation]

Waxman, The Honorable Henry A., Member of The United States Congress.------ 612

Western Airlines

submitted by Peggy Reardon, EEO Coordinator_..

615

Yale University

submitted by Radley H. Daly, Associate Provost, Personnel

617

Youngdahl, James E., General Counsel

International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, CIC; Arkansas State

AFL-CIO

619

NEW YORK CITY - APRIL 6, 1978

PANEL:

Commissioner ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Chair

Commissioner DANIEL E. LEACH

Commissioner ETHEL BENT WALSH

Chair NORTON: It is not by accident that it is here in New York City we open this series of hearings on discrimination because of religion, work scheduling and employee religious needs.

Large communities of every religion in the world have found a home in the boroughs of New York. There is no religion practiced in the world which is not also practiced in New York City.

This City concentrates the religious and ethnic diversity that has made the United States a uniquely successful enterprise in multi-group living.

But even the long history of religious toleration in America has left some areas in need of attention. We are holding there national hearings this month and next in New York, Los Angeles and Milwaukee because of our concern that business accommodate to the religious needs of workers, especially those with non-traditional religious needs.

The public is generally aware of our mission to eliminate discrimination based on race and sex, and minorities and women file by far the largest number of charges at EEOC.

But Title VII also covers discrimination based on religion, and we take each part of our mandate equally seriously.

In 1966, only a year after the Commission was created, the EEOC issued Religious Discrimination Guidelines which were revised in 1967. Subsequently, in 1972 the Congress of the United States enacted these guidelines into law as part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended.

However, last year the U.S. Supreme Court in a troubling decision, TWA versus Hardison, disallowed a claim of religious accommodation that involved a seniority system.

We believe that decision leaves intact the duty of business to accommodate to the religious needs of employees in most circumstances.

However, the decision has left confusion in its wake. Reports to the Commission and actual cases filed with us demonstrate that some employers believe that the Hardison case has revoked the necessity for accommodation.

Such a misinterpretation of an employer's responsibility to accommodate to the religious needs of employees is a very serious matter. In metropolitan New York there are more than two million Jews, 28,000 Seven Day Adventists, and 200,000 Moslems, to name only three of the largest groups among whom will be great numbers of people with special religious needs.

In a period of our history which has seen a rebirth of immigration following the liberalization of our immigration laws in the 1960's, there are thousands upon thousands of such religious observers across America.

Confusion as to their rights cannot be tolerated. Thus, the Commission is convening these hearings to seek information on existing practices in order to design an appropriate remedy following the Hardison decision.

We are aware that in this City and throughout the nation there are many employers who continue to accommodate to the religious needs of their workers, and we know that this has not created a hardship on these businesses.

Their experience should be shared with others. The more we learn about successful business experience with religious accommodation, the more realistic and fair will be the remedies we recommend.

In these hearings we will also hear from individuals and organizations what the record of abuse has been. We know from our contacts with religious and human rights organizations that there has indeed been abuse.

And the record of charges at the Commission provide further documentation of continuing discrimination based on religion. If we look at the record since 1968 we see a marked increase in charges from individuals based on religion. In 1968 there were only 69 charges, but in 1977 this number had grown 26 times to almost 2,000 filed in that year.

Many of these were charges based on religious accommodation. We do not know that this indicates a trend of increasing abuse, and we hope that it does not.

It may be that religious observers are increasingly aware of their rights and more willing to pursue them. Whatever, the cause, the need for attention is clear.

Under Title VII, it is as illegal to discriminate in employment because of religion as it is because of race, sex and national origin. Religion as

defined in the statute includes all aspects of religious observance and belief, and an employer must make reasonable accommodation to an employee's religious practices.

An employer is exempt from this requirement only if he shows that accommodation would create an undue hardship on the conduct of his business.

For example, it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an individual who observes a Saturday Sabbath unless the employer shows that business would suffer unduly if the individual were given Saturdays off instead of some other day.

The requirement to use reasonable alternatives that avoid an adverse impact on a religious group is by now a well established principle in Title VII law. The burden is on the employer to show that the practice that interferes with religious observance is necessary and that there is no alternative practice available with less adverse impact.

Thus, it is clear that employers have the duty under Title VII to make reasonable accommodations to the religious needs of their employees.

It is the extent of accommodation that has been the subject of some uncertainty. These hearings are designed to provide the data to enable the Commission to clear up any existing uncertainty in this important

area.

Employers today are accommodating to a set of network styles ranging from flexible hours to accommodate working mothers and fathers to modes of work which offer workers a more humanistic environment in the work place. But none of these concerns can equal the duty to accommodate to an employee's religious needs.

For this is not a matter of convenience, updated lifestyles, or even greater humanism. It is a matter of right that proceeds directly from the oldest of our Constitutional rights, the First Amendment right to practice one's religion freely. That right has now been reinforced and elaborated upon in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Commission is here today to begin the search to make this vital right real for religious observers across the nation.

With me at this hearing are two other Commissioners from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On my right is Commissioner Daniel Leach, the Vice Chairman of the Commission and on my left is Commissioner Ethel Bent Walsh.

I am going to go to the other Commissioners to see if they have any opening remarks that they wish to make.

Commissioner LEACH: I only wish to echo the remarks of the Chair and I know that these hearings will bring about, I think, a better

« ÎnapoiContinuă »