Reference no: EM133464914

Susan pondered these words as she sat at her desk in the human resources (HR) department. As an HR manager at a resort, Susan rarely had time to ponder the big picture because she was always responding to situations and "putting out fires." Often these situations had legal implications for the firm. Just last week, a female employee filed a discrimination complaint against the resort's hotel restaurant where she has been employed as a costumed storyteller for the past two years, entertaining children. The employee, a Muslim woman, had requested management to allow her to wear a head scarf (hijab) during work time. After consulting with higher management authority, her supervisor informed the employee that she could wear a head scarf but it would have to be designed by the resort's costume department and in the interim period she could not wear her own head scarf. Two months later, after hearing no further word from her supervisor about the issue, the employee chose to wear her own head scarf to work. Upon seeing the employee wearing her head scarf, her supervisor told her she would have to remove it, change to a job which did not require direct customer contact, or go home. She refused to remove it and she refused to change jobs, asserting that she was protected by federal equal employment opportunity law. So the manager suspended her.

"Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn't wear something like that, that's not part of the costume," the manager explained. "We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those and to go home."

The woman has not worked for the firm for the past week. The employee's union supported her decision to file a legal discrimination claim against the company and indicated it would be willing to file a contract grievance discrimination claim if she wanted to do so.

Susan, as the HR manager, was confident that the company had a good discrimination policy in place. Susan thought that requiring every aspect of the employee's costume to conform to the resort's intended image was important to maintaining good customer relations. The accommodations offered by the employer were reasonable in Susan's view. Still, it did concern her that two months had elapsed since the employee's initial request to wear a head scarf at work and while the company had indicated that she could do so if the scarf conformed to the company's costume concept, no suitable scarf had yet been provided to the employee. Could the company be liable for reinstatement and back pay if the delay were found to be unreasonable, and the employee continued to refuse the transfer to a noncustomer contact job? Even if the company prevailed in getting the federal discrimination complaint dismissed, would the employee then file a contractual grievance seeking a similar remedy for lost time from work? Would an arbitrator likely take the same view as a court? What effect could the publicity surrounding the claim have on the company's business operations or the ongoing contract negotiations with the employee's union?

1. Could the company be liable for reinstatement and back pay if the delay were found to be unreasonable and the employee continued to refuse a transfer to a noncustomer contact job? Elaborate on your answer.

2. What effect could the publicity surrounding the discrimination claim have on the company's business operations or future contract negotiations with the employee's union?a