Protecting Pluralism

EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Promotes Greater Sympathy for Religious Rules

by Christina Schweighofer

Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Chai Feldblum at USC Gould

Three cases: There’s the waitress who doesn’t want to sing Happy Birthday for guests because her religion does not engage in the pagan ritual. There’s the member of the Faith Reform Church who refuses to work on Sundays because his religion says it’s a sin to do so. And there’s the Muslim woman who plans on wearing her hijab at work but is denied employment by Abercrombie & Fitch clothing retailer because the company’s dress policy doesn’t allow head coverings.

During a talk at USC Gould recently, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Chai Feldblum used these examples to explain the EEOC’s individualized approach in defending people’s religious rights, and to bring about an understanding of the commandedness of religious rules. Reflecting on the right to religious accommodation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Feldblum pointed out that equality is not simply treating everyone the same because people are different to begin with.

 “It’s not enough,” Feldblum told about 80 students and faculty members, “for the law to provide that if you say, ‘I’m a Muslim’ you still can get a job. The law must ensure that the person can live as a Muslim and have a job.”

Feldblum, a scholar who is best known as an outspoken advocate of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender as well as disability rights, was appointed to the EEOC by President Obama in 2009. In the lecture, she talked about her upbringing in an Orthodox Jewish family and her personal respect for religious people and their views. Acknowledging that it can be hard for members of religions that don’t have “a ton of rules” to grasp the non-negotiability of religious precepts, she appealed for more understanding. “We need to educate people about the commandedness aspect of religions even if some of the religious rules seem bizarre and not easy to comprehend,” she said.

Looking at a couple of other cases involving religious accommodation, Feldblum explained some of the “modern challenges” the courts are increasingly dealing with. In these situations the religious rights of one party under Title VII conflict with the rights of another party under the same title.

In one example, a Christian school bought health insurance for its male but not for its female employees maintaining that, according to the tenets of its religion, men must provide for their families. The school expected women to obtain coverage via a husband. In the case before the 9th Circuit it claimed an exemption under Title VII which allows religious organizations to discriminate based on religion. The school lost. The court held that the exemption does not apply for gender discrimination (which is prohibited under Title VII) and that the school had not made a compelling case that its religion made the insurance rule necessary. Stating that “the courts are really murky” when it comes to dealing with such conflicts, Feldblum pleaded for everyone, from the courts and the EEOC to the public, to make it their moral obligation to protect pluralism in the country.