The holiday season makes an ideal time to focus on the law regarding religion in the workplace. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion. In 2004, the EEOC reported more than 2,400 religious discrimination claims (https://crm.hr.com//en?i=1116423256281&s=&t=/Default/openExternalURL&url=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5lZW9jLmdvdi9zdGF0cy9yZWxpZ2lvbi5odG1s"). Not surprisingly, many of these claims are combined with national origin discrimination allegations (i.e. someone alleges discrimination because they re of Arab origin, as well as Muslim).

The EEOC makes these points on its Web site:

"In most cases, whether or not a practice or a belief is religious is not an issue. However, the EEOC defines religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what s right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional, religious views. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs, or that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong might not accept such belief, will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase religious practices includes both religious observances and practices."

"If your company s dress code conflicts with religious practices, the employer must modify the dress code unless doing so would result in undue hardship. The EEOC s guidelines on religious discrimination can be found by going to www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-relig_ethnic.html.

Also, bear in mind that:

• It s unlawful for an employer to fail to accommodate reasonably the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation will mean undue hardship in conducting its business.
• An employer may not ask about an employee s religious background unless justified by business necessity.

A recent issue of the California Labor and Employment Law Review included these case headlines:

• Employee Defrauded Into Resigning Prior Employment Receives $1.1 Million Judgment
• Employer That Did Not Have Actual Knowledge of Employee's Pregnancy Could Not Have Discriminated
• Employer Entitled to Summary Judgment in Discrimination Case Where Same Supervisor Had Promoted Employee
• Employee With Depression and BiPolar Disorder Could Proceed With Disability Discrimination Claims
• Employee Who Resigned Had Not Been Subjected to Retaliation
• Employee Who Caused Automobile Accident at In-N-Out Burger Was Not Acting Within Scope of Employment
• Employer Could Pursue Fraud Claim Against Bankrupt Former Employee
• Finance and Insurance Managers of Auto Dealers Were Not Owed Overtime Under the FLSA
• Manager Was Not Immune From Personal Liability for Torturous or Criminal Conduct

The point is this: You can t defend against these actions from the rear-view mirror. Once an employee is encouraged to see an attorney, it s too late: A case that has proceeded to this point has cost the employer at least $100K - win or lose!

To avoid finding yourself in this situation, use the HR That Works tools on the front end. Don t assume that your employees know HR laws and regulations - train them! Don t trust blindly - have checks and balances. Don t assume that everything is going OK - use the Compliance Survey to find out. Only front-end strategies can keep your company out of the headlines.