fbpx

No Pants….Seriously?

We have always felt relatively confident in counseling employers to require their employees to keep their pants on at work. The EEOC seems to think our advice is misguided. In a lawsuit filed in a South Carolina federal court in early November 2016, the EEOC claims that the Akebono Brake Corporation is liable for religious discrimination for refusing to allow a temporary agency to assign an employee to its plant because she would not wear pants. Confused? We are too.

The EEOC contends that the employee is an observant member of the Apostolic Faith Church of God and True Holiness, a Pentecostal Christian denomination, who holds the sincere religious belief that as a woman she cannot wear pants and is commanded to wear skirts or dresses. Akebono, however, has a dress code that requires workers in its manufacturing facilities to wear pants. So Akebono said, “no pants, no job.” The EEOC position is that failure to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs violates her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

While employers in this country remain free to prohibit women from wearing pants at work (yes, that’s true), the EEOC apparently believes that we just cannot require it. That is the agency’s position–even in the face of a legitimate safety-related reason to prohibit dresses and skirts in a manufacturing facility in which the material might get caught in the moving parts of a machine. The EEOC’s stated concern is that Akebono did not engage in an “interactive process” with the employee to determine whether a reasonable accommodation was available. However, because this case just started, it remains to be seen if safety considerations will prevail over this employee’s religious beliefs.

By the way, this is not the EEOC’s first pants suit (sorry) nor the first time women wearing pants at work or elsewhere has been a controversial issue. In 2013, the EEOC sued Scottish Food Systems, Inc., the owner of numerous KFC franchise restaurants, because it too required all employees to wear pants at work as part of its food hygiene protocol. The employer settled that case for $40,000 before trial. Ironically, in 1994, the California legislature narrowly defeated a bill that would have outlawed dress codes forbidding women from wearing pants at work. And in 2009, thirteen women were arrested and flogged in Sudan because they wore pants in violation of that country’s law.

If the EEOC prevails in the Akebono case, that employer could be forced to hire a temporary worker and allow her to wear a skirt or dress to work at its manufacturing facility despite the risk to her own safety. Stay tuned.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
   Confidentiality and Non-Competition Agreements · Union Avoidance · HR Policies and Procedures · Employment Discrimination Defense · Separation Agreements · Employee Discipline and Discharge · Commercial Litigation · Sexual Harassment Training · Workplace Investigations · Wage & Hour Law Compliance · Defense of FLSA Collective Actions · Employment Agreements · Reductions in Force and Restructurings · Directors and Officers Liability · Wrongful Termination Defense · Performance Management Training · Trademark Disputes · WARN Act Analysis · Breach of Contract Claims · Restrictive Covenant Litigation · Negotiation of Collective Bargaining Agreements · Social Media, Technology and Privacy Policies · Professional Liability Defense · Family and Medical Leave Compliance · Trade Secrets Litigation · Unfair Competition Disputes · Labor Arbitrations · HIPAA Compliance · Minority Shareholder Disputes · I-9 Compliance · Independent Contractor Analysis · Disability Laws and Accommodations · Consumer Fraud Act Defense · Wage & Hour Class Action Defense · Protection Against Unfair Competition · Fiduciary Liability · Partnership Disputes · Defense of Retaliation Claims · HR Compliance Audits · Sexual Harassment Defense · Prevailing Wage Law Compliance · Confidentiality and Non-Competition Agreements · Union Avoidance · HR Policies and Procedures · Employment Discrimination Defense · Separation Agreements · Employee Discipline and Discharge · Commercial Litigation · Sexual Harassment Training · Workplace Investigations · Wage & Hour Law Compliance · Defense of FLSA Collective Actions · Employment Agreements · Reductions in Force and Restructurings · Directors and Officers Liability · Wrongful Termination Defense · Performance Management Training · Trademark Disputes · WARN Act Analysis · Breach of Contract Claims · Restrictive Covenant Litigation · Negotiation of Collective Bargaining Agreements · Social Media, Technology and Privacy Policies · Professional Liability Defense · Family and Medical Leave Compliance · Trade Secrets Litigation · Unfair Competition Disputes · Labor Arbitrations · HIPAA Compliance · Minority Shareholder Disputes · I-9 Compliance · Independent Contractor Analysis · Disability Laws and Accommodations · Consumer Fraud Act Defense · Wage & Hour Class Action Defense · Protection Against Unfair Competition · Fiduciary Liability · Partnership Disputes · Defense of Retaliation Claims · HR Compliance Audits · Sexual Harassment Defense · Prevailing Wage Law Compliance

OUR LOCATIONS

NJ - North

165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 306
Fairfield, New Jersey 07004
P: (973) 307-0800

NJ - Central/South

106 Apple Street, Suite 302
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
P: (732) 852-7500

New York

80 Broad Street, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10004
P: (877) 355-5606

Pennsylvania

1650 Arch Street, 18th Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
P: (877) 355-5606

For employers of all sizes, business owners, and managers, we provide employment law solutions on any issue involving employees: from human resources counseling and policy development, the defense of employment litigation, union avoidance strategies, collective bargaining, to workplace training and investigation.

Subscribe To Our Alerts & News