In April, the BJC was invited to speak via Skype to members of the First Baptist Church of Tallahassee, Fla., who have recently organized a church initiative called WorkFaith. The group, which meets monthly for lunch hour discussion and devotion, is part of a larger movement seeking to equip Christians to apply their faith in the workplace. This “faith at work” movement is a response to a growing need for information and education about ways to prioritize service to God in the employment context while fulfilling secular job duties and respecting the rights of others. An important component of such education efforts is understanding legal parameters of religion in the workplace. As with other issues in Christian life, there are many perspectives about how our faith should be integrated into our professional lives, but there is general consensus about the ways the law both facilitates and limits workplace ministry.
As an initial matter, the law does not say that the workplace is a “religion-free” zone or that employees must check their faith at the door. In many instances, the law confers a right to engage in religious speech and expression on the job. At the same time, the law recognizes that we live in a pluralistic society, and this is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in the workplace.
In general, the employment laws applicable to religious expression exist to prevent discriminatory conduct by or against employees. The crux of the law on religion in the workplace is respect. Fortunately, this is consistent with the Christian tradition, which calls followers to live out their faith in every aspect of daily life, including work, while respecting those who hold different values or subscribe to different belief systems. This does not mean faith has no place in employment, but it does command respect for certain legal boundaries and the rights of others.
Protection of religion in the workplace is part of our country’s religious liberty tradition. Any discussion of religious liberty begins with the First Amendment’s religion clauses, which apply to the relationship between citizens and the government. In general, the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from promoting, sponsoring or endorsing religion. The Free Exercise Clause protects against government interference in religion. Along with the Free Speech Clause, the religion clauses limit the government’s role in religious choices and practices of individuals and faith communities. In the employment setting, these constitutional principles impose special duties on government employers and employees.
The major source of generally applicable employment law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of protected categories such as race, color, sex, national origin or religion. It applies to all employers, government and private, with 15 or more employees. Under Title VII, employers cannot make religion a condition or requirement in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, or other aspects such as promotion, job assignments, discipline or benefits. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would result in an undue hardship for the employer. The undue hardship standard has been interpreted as anything more than minimal costs. Some considerations include whether a requested accommodation interferes with an employee’s work duties, infringes on the rights of others, or impairs workplace safety. Addition-ally, an employer is not required to accommodate employee conduct that could create a hostile work environment or that constitutes harassment of other employees. Still, there are many instances in which an employee’s need for an accommodation can be easily met. Some common methods of accommodation include scheduling changes, such as permitting an employee to swap shifts in order to attend a religious worship service, or making an exception to general grooming or dress rules to allow an employee to wear a head covering for religious reasons. In addition to Title VII, state and local laws provide similar, and often stronger, protections against workplace discrimination.
Many employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs may compel them to share their faith with others, and the Title VII duty to accommodate applies to workplace proselytizing as well — subject to the same limitations as other religiously-motivated conduct. Workplace ministry can present a challenge for employers, who have a duty to accommodate employee religious practices but must also ensure that any proselytizing does not amount to religious harassment of others. Further, government employers must be sensitive to the Establishment Clause concerns that arise when an employee’s proselytizing could be reasonably perceived as expressing the government’s own views. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that when government employees speak in their official capacity as government representatives, their speech belongs to the government and can be limited to comply with Establishment Clause requirements. Some government employees interact frequently with members of the general public, often providing services that citizens cannot obtain anywhere else. In this setting, it is much more likely that the public will attribute what these employees say and do to the government itself. Thus, if employees use the role of public servant to evangelize, it is likely to be perceived as government promotion of religion — the very thing the Establishment Clause exists to prevent.
The Establishment Clause does not, however, affect the rights of government employees when they speak as purely private individuals. And a government employee does not necessarily speak in an official capacity during all hours of the workday. In these instances, Title VII principles apply, and an employer should accommodate its employee’s religious conduct insofar as it does not cause undue hardship, is not disruptive and does not amount to harassment. Generally speaking, government employers have greater flexibility to accommodate employees’ efforts to proselytize when members of the public are not involved. The Federal Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Workplace, in place since 1997, provide additional useful guidance in the context of federal employment. They have often served as a model for state and local government policy and even for private employers (although the latter are not bound by the Establishment Clause).
Whenever employees seek to express their religion in the workplace, it is helpful to do so with an understanding of the respective rights and responsibilities of employers and employees. While every professional environment is unique, awareness of these basic boundaries can render many conflicts avoidable.
