Employees Can Be Told What to Wear in Georgia
Boss can dictate no-skirt policy for safety reasonsBy Judy Malmon, J.D. | Last updated on January 23, 2023
Use these links to jump to different sections:
Accommodating Sincerely Held Religious BeliefsTake, for example, dress requirements that violate the dictates of an employee’s religion, such as prohibiting head coverings. Though even-handed on its face, where this kind of requirement isn’t based in a legitimate business reason, it’s likely be found a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in 2015, deciding that defendant Abercrombie and Fitch’s failure to hire a Muslim woman because her hijab clashed with their “classic East Coast collegiate style” was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice, in violation of Title VII. That said, the law on what kinds of religious garb must be accommodated, and in what circumstances, is still being hashed out. Marcus Keegan, an employment attorney in Atlanta, represented a client who had been hired by Delta Airlines as a ramp agent, loading baggage onto planes. He states that she was capable of performing the required duties, but her religion prohibited her from wearing pants. “She’d worked other jobs where she was able to wear a long skirt, and that was fine. During the training, when they told her she would have to wear pants, she complained,” Keegan says.
Safety Concerns May Outweigh ReligionKeegan’s client prevailed at the magistrate level, but the district court judge overturned the decision, finding that Delta had a legitimate business interest in its concern that the plaintiff’s skirt presented a safety issue to her work environment. “One of the things that was interesting about the case,” Keegan adds, “is that they actually had her come in and do a mock version of the job. In the deposition, when I asked if she was able to do the job, they said, ‘yes.’ But the guy said she could have hurt herself, and that the skirt rode up. Their argument was restricted movement, like if she had to climb up on something. Our argument was: She had never done the job, so she didn’t know precisely what it entailed. She could have worn a different skirt, or she could have worn leggings underneath.” In the end, Keegan’s client decided not to appeal the matter further, in large part because she needed to move on with her life. “By then, it had been four years, and the client had found another job and was ready to be done,” he says. In addition, the climate in the 11th Circuit has typically been less favorable toward employee rights than other jurisdictions, meaning that lawyers like Keegan need to pick their battles carefully, to prevent making bad precedent. Although Georgia may afford fewer employee protections than some other states, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pursue a Title VII complaint if you think you’ve been discriminated against. Talk to an experienced employment attorney who represents employees. For more information about this area, see our overviews on employment law for employees, discrimination and sexual harassment.
Additional Employment Law - Employee articles
Find top lawyers with confidence
The Super Lawyers patented selection process is peer influenced and research driven, selecting the top 5% of attorneys to the Super Lawyers lists each year. We know lawyers and make it easy to connect with them.Find a lawyer near you