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

LOG IN
LOG IN


57 Okla. L. Rev. 657 (2004)
Employment Law: Congress Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: Title VII's Prohibition of Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

handle is hein.journals/oklrv57 and id is 673 raw text is: NOTES Employment Law: Congress Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away: Title VII's Prohibition of Religious Discrimination in the Workplace* I. Introduction Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964' (Title VII) prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.2 Specifically, with respect to religion, Title VII bars overt employment discrimination based on employees' religious beliefs or practices.3 Congress broadened the scope of Title Vil's protections with a 1972 amendment that requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practices when a facially neutral employment practice has a disparate impact on an employee's religious beliefs or practices.4 No reasonable accommodation is required, however, if the employer would suffer undue hardship as a result of such accommodation.' Because Congress failed to define reasonable accommodation and undue hardship, there is no coherent and consistent framework addressing an employer's duty to accommodate minority religious beliefs under Title VII. Congress intended Title VII to allow individuals to express their religious beliefs freely without being hindered by otherwise facially neutral employment practices.6 Congress promulgated Title VII not only to prohibit overt religious discrimination, but also to remove impediments caused by neutral regulations that disproportionately impact adherents of minority religions.7 Courts, however, have effectively limited the scope of protection by finding an undue hardship when anything more than minimal effort or cost * Winner, Frank C. Love Memorial Scholarship. I would like to dedicate this work to my parents, Muhammad and Nargis Yasin, and my husband, Tariq Yunus, for their endless love, support, and encouragement. Additionally, I would like to thank Courtney Zaghari-Mask for inspiring me to explore the area of employment discrimination. 1. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2000). 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. Pub. L. No. 92-261, § 2, 86 Stat. 103, 103 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j)). 5. Id. 6. See, e.g., Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-30 (1971). 7. See, e.g., id.