In “Divine accommodations: Religion in the workplace” (2000) Risk Management October 12 William Atkinson takes a practitioner take on religion in the US workplace. He sees religion as the next fight for rights in the US workplace, following on waves of race, gender, and sexuality. Employers face more challenges as the general population become more religious, more diverse in their religion, and more aware of their legal rights.
Atkinson argued that there were three challenges on the way. Firstly, determining religious accommodation. Secondly, defining religious freedom of speech. Thirdly managing a religion-based company. From 2000, Atkinson seems to me have largely nailed hot topics, missing from his explicit list only broader challenges of competing rights.
In this magazine length article, Atkinson includes a very short case study of Intel, which sees itself as going well beyond legal duties in the area; and as a result does not face disputes around compliance with the law. I was reminded of the idea in Jewish law of khumra – a rule that exceeds the bare requirements of halakha – based on Deuteronomy 22:8: “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof”. To what extent does HR policy and training in an organisation deliberately seek to establish a khumra? In some instances, may they do so inadvertently because of an (understandable) nervousness about violating equality or religious freedom laws, and an assumption that an overly broad interpretation of the legal obligations of the business must be on the safe side?
Peter Edge's Law Blog. 