About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


63 Ark. L. Rev. 515 (2010)
Better Disabled than Devout - Why Title VII has Failed to Provide Adequate Accommodations against Workplace Religious Discrimination

handle is hein.journals/arklr63 and id is 521 raw text is: Better Disabled than Devout? Why Title VII Has Failed to Provide Adequate Accommodations Against Workplace Religious Discrimination By Keith S. Blair* 1. Introduction Imagine you suddenly have become disabled and you are now confined to a wheelchair. Being confined to a wheelchair, however, has not prevented you from holding a full-time job in which you thrive. Further imagine that your employer does not provide a ramp or some other accommodation for you to enter the building. You and most of society would find that unreasonable and, indeed, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would probably mandate that you be accommodated. Now imagine that you are a devout follower of a religion and that your religious beliefs mandate that you must wear a particular piece of clothing. One would expect that, based on workplace anti-discrimination statutes, some accommodation would be made so that you could wear the clothing. One also might expect that your religious beliefs would be given at least the same protection that the ADA would provide you were you disabled. That expectation might not be met however. On June 8, 2009, the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice filed suit on behalf of the United States of America pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Essex County, New Jersey.' The Justice * Associate Professor of Law and Director, Low-Income Tax Clinic, University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law, B.A. 1982; Andrews University, J.D., 1993, Brooklyn Law School. At the time this article was written, Professor Blair was an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, Funding for this article was provided by a University of Baltimore Educational Foundation Summer Research Fellowship. Professor Blair would like to thank his wife, Faith Blair, for her unending support. 1. See Complaint, United States v. Essex Cnty., Civ. Action No. 09-2772 (KSH), 2010 WL 551393 (D. N.J. Feb. 16, 2009), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/