Dresses and skirts are reasonable attire for Christian women. Some Americans do not think so. Even some churches, Christians, and Christian women no longer think so. However, the EEOC thinks so, and now Wellpath healthcare services does too.
Malinda Babineaux, a nurse and member of the Apostolic Pentecostal Christian Church, wanted to be able to both work and live by her beliefs as well. Living out those beliefs includes wearing a scrub skirt (as opposed to scrub pants) while she is working. When Wellpath, an organization who hired Babineaux, found out her faith and practice, they denied her clothing request and took away the job they offered her.According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a nurse who is a practicing Apostolic Pentecostal Christian was hired by Wellpath to work in the GEO Central Texas Correctional Facility in downtown San Antonio. Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.Philip Moss, a trial attorney for the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office, said, “Under federal law, when a workplace rule conflicts with an employee’s sincerely held religious practice, an employer must attempt to find a workable solution.” Apparently the EEOC felt that Wellpath made no such attempt, and took them to court. And won.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination against a person based on such things as religion, race, and sex are prohibited. Employers are required to offer reasonable accommodations to an individual’s “sincerely held religious beliefs unless it would pose an undue hardship,” the EEOC stressed.It’s official, legal – and probably even biblical – skirts and dresses are reasonable attire for Christian women!
3 comments:
Did the EEOC offer any rationale for their refusal to support accomodation? Also, what scriptures are adduced to support the notion that women *should* (not merely *may*) appropriately wear skirts/dresses (and/or that they ought not wear pants)?
Oops, I meant Well path, not the EEOC.
None of the articles that I read clearly stated the rationale for Wellpath's refusal to make an accommodation, just that they did not/would not. They would have to have offered one in the legal proceedings. Of course the EEOC's legal proceedings do not (and should not) address whether they think is scriptural, just that it is the lady's sincerely held belief that should be accommodated.
Post a Comment