Religious Garb-Hijaab
Issue: The primary issue in this employment discrimination case is whether or not a police officer is allowed to wear a religious garment - hijaab - with her uniform, without inflicting a burden upon the City of Philadelphia.
Facts:
Kimberly Webb is a female Muslim police officer who worked for the City of Philadelphia as a police officer since the year of 1995. In the year of 2003, she kindly requested the Police Department in the City of Philadelphia to wear her religious garb - hijaab - with her uniform while being on duty. Unfortunately, the Police Department denied her request on the basis of the Directive 78, which does not include any direct statements that allow employees to wear religious symbols or garb as part of the uniform. Consequently, Webb filed an official complaint of religious discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the EEOC, and even though her matter was pending, she decided to wear her hijaab to work on August 12, 2003. Thus, disciplinary charges of insubordination were brought against Webb, as she was suspended for 13 days. Finally, she brought a suit against the City of Philadelphia on October 5, 2005 via stating the following - religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and sex …show more content…
discrimination - as causes under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Law:
The primary law which was both employed and examined in order to reach a decision on the issue was Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This law prohibits employers from discriminating their employees on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, and national origin. Since, Webb was not allowed to wear her religious garb in conjunction with her uniform, she felt that she was religiously discriminated, and hence she filed a suit against the City of Philadelphia under Title VII.
Analysis:
After scrupulously analyzing and reviewing all the facts and laws involved in the case, the District court concluded that Webb will not be allowed to wear her religious garb in conjunction with her uniform while being on duty.
Furthermore, the District Court ruled in this manner because allowing Webb to wear her garb would not only cause the Police Department to suffer an undue hardship, but also violates the department policy in allowing her to wear her garb. Furthermore, one of the undue hardships that the Police Department would have to endure if Webb was sanctioned her request would be endangering the safety of its’ officers, and endangering the public confidence towards the Police Department in the City of
Philadelphia.
Conclusion:
Even though the District of Court ruled against Webb, I do believe that this ruling was a pragmatic one, as it gave the safety of the public precedence over the religious choice of one individual. Furthermore, in my opinion this case was aptly ruled as creating a religious exception for Webb would most definitely cause an undue hardship on the Police Department of the City of Philadelphia. Even though some critics of this ruling would argue that the ruling was religiously discriminatory itself, these critics are too dogmatic in their ideology as they fail to view the situation as a whole and merely focus on the point that Webb was a Muslim female. Therefore, in the light of all facts and laws at the moment of the case, I would claim this ruling as a valid one as it was not based on emotions rather on logic.
Facts:
Kimberly Webb is a female Muslim police officer who worked for the City of Philadelphia as a police officer since the year of 1995. In the year of 2003, she kindly requested the Police Department in the City of Philadelphia to wear her religious garb - hijaab - with her uniform while being on duty. Unfortunately, the Police Department denied her request on the basis of the Directive 78, which does not include any direct statements that allow employees to wear religious symbols or garb as part of the uniform. Consequently, Webb filed an official complaint of religious discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the EEOC, and even though her matter was pending, she decided to wear her hijaab to work on August 12, 2003. Thus, disciplinary charges of insubordination were brought against Webb, as she was suspended for 13 days. Finally, she brought a suit against the City of Philadelphia on October 5, 2005 via stating the following - religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and sex …show more content…
discrimination - as causes under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Law:
The primary law which was both employed and examined in order to reach a decision on the issue was Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This law prohibits employers from discriminating their employees on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, and national origin. Since, Webb was not allowed to wear her religious garb in conjunction with her uniform, she felt that she was religiously discriminated, and hence she filed a suit against the City of Philadelphia under Title VII.
Analysis:
After scrupulously analyzing and reviewing all the facts and laws involved in the case, the District court concluded that Webb will not be allowed to wear her religious garb in conjunction with her uniform while being on duty.
Furthermore, the District Court ruled in this manner because allowing Webb to wear her garb would not only cause the Police Department to suffer an undue hardship, but also violates the department policy in allowing her to wear her garb. Furthermore, one of the undue hardships that the Police Department would have to endure if Webb was sanctioned her request would be endangering the safety of its’ officers, and endangering the public confidence towards the Police Department in the City of
Philadelphia.
Conclusion:
Even though the District of Court ruled against Webb, I do believe that this ruling was a pragmatic one, as it gave the safety of the public precedence over the religious choice of one individual. Furthermore, in my opinion this case was aptly ruled as creating a religious exception for Webb would most definitely cause an undue hardship on the Police Department of the City of Philadelphia. Even though some critics of this ruling would argue that the ruling was religiously discriminatory itself, these critics are too dogmatic in their ideology as they fail to view the situation as a whole and merely focus on the point that Webb was a Muslim female. Therefore, in the light of all facts and laws at the moment of the case, I would claim this ruling as a valid one as it was not based on emotions rather on logic.