November/December 2004 Issue Number 65

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

11th International Conference of Fire Service Women March 29-April 3, 2005. Montgomery County, Maryland. Go to www.wfsi.org for more information.  

Religion in the Workplace  

As recent election results attest, issues of religion and faith are important to Americans. The vast majority of Americans say they believe in God, and most attend some type of church or other religious institution. Now more than ever, people are wanting to bring their religious beliefs into all aspects of their lives, including the workplace, and this is creating new challenges for employers.  

Employers' accommodations for religion cover a wide range, from simply providing a quiet space for individual prayer or contemplation, to supporting affinity groups with a religious focus, to employing chaplains, to sponsoring religious activities. In private industry, some businesses openly declare themselves "workplace ministries" and in the case of one bank in Minnesota, encourage employees to pray with customers.  

The legality of religion at work is not entirely clear cut. While it is not illegal to allow religious expression in the workplace, employers have no obligation to accommodate religious beliefs or practice that interfere with the job mission and function. Likewise, employees are protected from intimidation and harassment based on religion under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In fact, religious discrimination complaints to the EEOC have increased 84% since 1992, and are up 30% since 2000. And the complaints are coming from both sides. Employees who want a secular workplace complain that religious employees harass them by expressing their faith or proselytizing at work. Religious employees complain that their constitutional right to freedom of religion and expression is abridged when they cannot talk freely about their faith.  

What's an employer to do? First, all employers need to recognize the reality that religion and faith are a large part of many people's lives. But this recognition must include all faiths, and not allow one perspective to dominate, intimidate or silence others at work. Second, employers should keep in mind that the courts have supported reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, but only if such accommodation does not interfere with the essential mission of the organization. For example, a truck driver who refused to do overnight runs with a female driver because of his religious beliefs lost his case of discrimination after he was fired (see Archives, July-August 2002) . A firefighter who refuses to work on a certain day of the week for religious reasons would almost certainly not prevail, for the same reasons.  

In times of great polarization, religion and faith should be a comfort to people and a source of potential unity, not a source of conflict and harm. Employers must work to recognize the needs of all employees in this area, including those who reject religion altogether, when making organizational decisions that affect everyone.  

Source: The New York Times Magazine, October 31, 2004   

 

Debra Pryor, a 20 year fire service veteran, has been selected as the next chief of the Berkeley, CA Fire Department. Chief Pryor spent most of her career with the Berkeley Fire Department, but most recently has served as deputy chief with the Palo Alto Fire Department. Chief Pryor is the second African-American woman to be selected to lead a career fire department in the United States.

Source: Women in the Fire Service  

Reverse Discrimination  

Two teachers in Norwalk, CT recently sued the school system for what they claim is reverse discrimination. Specifically, they said that because they are white, they were passed over for promotions and transfers in favor of African-Americans.

Reverse discrimination is a term many people are familiar with. What most people understand reverse discrimination to mean is discrimination against white people when those of other races are favored because of affirmative action, or against men when women are similarly favored.  

In fact, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. In the world of civil rights law, you're either discriminated against or you're not, and the same law applies regardless of your race or gender. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that discrimination based on race is illegal, not "race other than white." If white people are truly being discriminated against because of their race, then they can sue and potentially prevail under Title VII, just like those of any other racial group.  

In most cases, claiming reverse discrimination is really about challenging affirmative action, where employees of specific racial or ethnic groups (or in some cases, women) are given preference points in hiring or promotion as a directed way of making up for past discriminatory acts. Affirmative action has been under fire for years, but love it or hate it, it is still legal. The mere existence of an affirmative action policy or plan will generally not be enough to uphold a successful claim of discrimination. And although some consent decrees mandating affirmative hiring goals for minorities have been vacated either when legally challenged or no longer deemed necessary, other affirmative action plans have specifically been upheld in the federal courts (see Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local No. 2 v. City of Chicago, 7 th Circuit Court of Appeals 01-365.)  

It will be a better world when all employees can go to work without being affected by discrimination or harassment. Until then, everyone will benefit when more clarity is brought to the discussion.  

Sources: Associated Press, August 28. 2004
             Associated Press, October 29, 2001

 

© Linda F. Willing, 2004