Bhatia V. Chevron Case Study

A Company’s dress codes is very important, and it’s not just about projecting a corporate image. Having a work place dress code is a deterrent from harassment, removes the guess work out of what is or is not appropriate work attire, provides a sense of oneness regardless of the diversity of the workplace, and in some instances can also help prevent workplace injuries.

The law is clear employers cannot discriminate against employees for race, color, creed or religion. And in recent years the EEOC and our court system have made clear that discrimination against employees for their religious beliefs will not be tolerated. But when religious symbols in the work place interfere with job performance or the employees’ health or safety there are

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Pursuant to what it believed were requirements of California 's Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal/OSHA), Chevron implemented a policy requiring all machinists to shave off any facial hair interfering with the ability to achieve a gas-tight face seal with a respirator. When Bhatia, a machinist and a member of the Sikh religion, refused to shave, he was demoted. It was found that Chevron’s safety concerns were legitimate, the court ruled that accommodating Bhatia’s request to maintain his bearded appearance would subject the company to undue hardship, and consequently it dismissed his claim of religious discrimination (Wolkinson,

Oak-Rite Manufacturing Corp., Brenda Enlow applied for a position with Oak-Rite manufacturing and was denied because all employees were required to wear pants and as a member for the Holiness Church, Brenda’s religious beliefs only allowed to wear long skirts. These skirts could pose a hazard around machinery. The EEOC sued on Ms. Enlows behalf arguing that Oak-Rite should accommodate Ms. Enlow by allowing her to wear reasonably close-fitting denim or canvas skirts. Oak-rite argued that doing so would cause an undue hardship of experimenting with employee’s safety when they had a known dress code that was effective. The court agreed, stating that the employer’s limited duty of accommodation under Title VII does not require an employer to choose between potential Title VII liability on the one hand and potentially increased risk of workplace injuries on the other (FLAKE,