Religious Discriminations: Reasonable Accommodations

The Issue
According to the facts laid out in the scenario are that Ms. Djarra claims to have been
unfairly discriminated against. Ms. Djarra states that she is a Muslim and that religion requires
that she covers her head to observe the holy month of Ramadhan. She claims that some
employees make some remarks that are discriminative and offensive, such as associating her
religion with terrorism. Mr. Johnson, her employer, tells her that she cannot have a headwrap at
work since all the staff wears uniforms. Her employer offers her an alternative to taking the
month of Ramadan off without pay. Ms. Djarra declines this option because, according to her, it
is not economically feasible. Mr. Johnson ultimately gives her the notice to stop coming to work.
The Rule
Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1964) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 forbids
religious discrimination. The Act states that “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or to otherwise discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” (EEOC, n.d)
The Act defines religion as “all aspects of religious observance, practice, and belief
unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s
or a prospective employee’s religious observance in practice without undue hardship on the
conduct of the employee’s business.” (EEOC., n.d)
Analysis
Determine whether Ms. Djarra established a prima facie case of religious discrimination
against her by Mr. Johnson

3
Ms. Djarra may establish prima facie by proving that she had a belief in religious practice, the
practice conflicted with her employment duty, that she informed her employer of her religious
belief, and her employer discriminated against or discharged her as a result.
Ms. Djarra establishes a prima facie case of religious discrimination against her by Mr.
Johnson. Ms. Djarra reveals that she is a Muslim and that her actions to wear a headwrap is
synonymous with religious practice as a Muslim observing Ramadan and that the practice would
only last a month. Timing is essential in discrimination cases, as can be viewed in Tiano vs.
Dillard Department store. Tiano justifies her attending a pilgrimage as a need that arises from
deep within the heart. In the decision to reverse the finding of religious discrimination, the court
finds that she offers no evidence to support that she has to attend the pilgrimage at the time she
does. She also doesn’t provide additional evidence that the Catholic church advocated for people
to attend the pilgrimage at that time.
Ms. Djarra also notes that on the day she wears her headwrap, she explains to Mr.
Johnson that it is for religious reasons. Mr. Johnson informs Ms. Djarra that if she continues to
report to work with her headscarf, she will be fired. The next day, she is fired. Mr. Johnson can
reasonably accommodate Ms. Djarra’s practice without undue hardship. Ms. Djarra makes
additional efforts to try to conform to the organization’s uniform policy, such as wearing a
headscarf that is the same color as the uniform.
Prenkert et al., (2019, p.51-17) defines undue hardship as an accommodation that, on the
part of the employer, requires more than a minimal burden. Religious discrimination may only be
allowed when an employer cannot reasonably accommodate the religion or religious practice
without suffering undue hardship. In Cloutier V Costco Wholesale Corp 2004, the court upheld
that the employer (Costco) had no duty to accommodate Cloutier because, in so doing, it could

4
suffer undue hardship. In this case, Costco had revised its dress code, and the new code restricted
food-handling employees from having any jewelry. Mr. Johnson’s proposed accommodation is
to have Ms. Djarra take an unpaid leave from work. In Tiano vs. Dillard Departmental Stores
Inc., the court held that the employer failed to make reasonable accommodation to Tiano’s
religious beliefs when it fired her after she departed for pilgrimage in Yugoslavia.
Prenkert et al., (2019 p.51-17) also notes that the Supreme court made clarifications to
the claim of failure to accommodate by terming such failure a type of disparate claim. This,
therefore, means that it is not up to employees to prove the employer’s knowledge of the
religious practice. The employee only needs to prove that the employer’s negative treatment is a
result of the employee’s observance of the practice. In this case, Ms. Djarra notifies her employer
that the reason for her wearing a headscarf is in observance of the month of Ramadhan. In
Cloutier V Costco Wholesale Corp 2004, Cloutier does not at first notify her employer that her
piercings are a religious practice. This is a significant finding since the Supreme court only
reviewed the expectation for employees to notify their employer of religious observances in
2015.
Identify the types of damages available under Title VII and the type and amount of
damages to be awarded to Ms. Djarra if any
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act prescribes the types of damages in a case where
it is proven that the employer has engaged or is engaging in unlawful employment practice
(EEOC, n.d). The court may award reinstatement or hiring of employees. Ms. Djarra’s case
would be reinstatement which she indicates in the video to be open to (McGraw Hill, n.d).
With such reinstatement, the court may award back pay. However, any back pay awarded must
not accrue for more than two years after a charge has been filed with the Equal Employment

5
Opportunity Commission. Back pay may be awarded for the time when Ms. Djarra was out of
employment which is a few weeks. Since she found new employment, any award of back pay
during the period that she is in her new employment could amount to unjust enrichment. In Tiano
vs. Dillard Department store, the court finds that Tiano’s actions to accept employment in
another field lead to her failure to mitigate her damages. Tiano sought damages on the basis of
lost wages. Therefore, following the judge’s opinion in Tiano vs. Dillard Department store, Ms.
Djarra would not be awarded back pay for the period that she is employed in her new company
because she failed to mitigate her damages.
The court may award any other equitable relief at its own discretion. In Tiano vs. Dillard
Department store, the court initially awarded Tiano $ 16 445.65 in lost wages.
Conclusion
Ms. Djarra established a prima facie case of religious discrimination against her by Mr.
Johnson’s organization. Ms. Djara clearly intends to wear her scarf for religious reasons and
informs her employer that much. On this basis, she is discriminated against and losses her job.
Mr. Johnson does not make a good faith effort to offer reasonable accommodations to Ms. Djarra
even though he can without undue hardship. Ms. Djarra may be awarded damages for loss of
employment income as prescribed in the Equal Employment Act 1964.

6

References

Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 136 (1st Cir. 2004). Westlaw database in the
Ashford University Library
EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006). Westlaw database in
the Ashford University Library
EEOC. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. EEOC.Gov. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-
1964#:%7E:text=Title%20VII%20prohibits%20employment%20discrimination,Rights%
20Act%20of%201991%20(Pub.
McGraw-Hill. (n.d.). YBTJ_religious_arg [Video clip]. In Religious discrimination: Dress code
flips burger joint [Video file]. Retrieved
from http://www.viddler.com/embed/3a9062ec/?f=1&autoplay=0&player=full&disablebr
anding=0
Tiano v. Dillards Dept. Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998). Westlaw database in the
Ashford University Library