Opinion ID: 152022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Alternative Accommodation Offered by GEO Is Unreasonable as a Matter of Law

Text: Having concluded that issues of material fact remain with respect to GEO's arguments that accommodating khimars would work an undue burden upon their interests in safety and uniformity, I next consider whether GEO made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of plaintiffs. Id. at 259. GEO argues that it did offer a reasonable alternative accommodation, allowing them to wear a hairpiece, presumably a wig, instead of a khimar. An accommodation is reasonable if it eliminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices by allowing the individual to observe fully. Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 70, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). GEO contends that wearing a wig would eliminate the religious conflict of having uncovered hair for its Muslim women employees because their natural hair would be covered by synthetic hair. It further asserts that the fact that one Muslim woman employee allegedly agreed to wear such a hairpiece instead of a khimar is evidence that the offered accommodation would resolve class members' religious conflicts. The offered accommodation is not reasonable and was rightly rejected by the majority. Maj. Op. at 271. The Koran teaches that women must guard their modesty by wearing a khimar to cover their hair, heads, neck, and breast. JA 28-29. Plaintiffs maintain that covering their hair with natural-looking synthetic hair would not achieve that goal and eliminate the religious conflict at issue. [5] GEO has not questioned the sincerity of this religious belief. Therefore, under our religious accommodation precedents, this assertion is enough to resolve the question of whether the offer of an alternate hairpiece accommodation was reasonable. An employer is not entitled to interpret the employee's religion and determine what is and is not religiously acceptable to them. For example, in EEOC v. Ilona of Hungary, Inc., 108 F.3d 1569, 1576 (7th Cir.1997), two Jewish employees requested Yom Kippur off from work so that they could observe the religious holiday. The employer offered the employees another day off instead to observe the holiday. The Court held that this was not a reasonable accommodation. Just as it is not reasonable to ask a Christian employee to observe Christmas in July, it is not reasonable to ask a Muslim woman who must hide her hair to appear in public displaying a full head of hair. GEO's assertion that it has found one person who would agree to such a scheme does not prove that it is a reasonable accommodation. It is neither the court's nor the employer's prerogative to dictate to an employee how she should comply with the requirements of her religion. As the majority observes, [w]e are unwilling to delve into any matters of theology. Maj. Op. at 271.