Fed-Ex's Rewarding Policy

Yes, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports that Mr. Polk and others should be allowed to violate Fed-ex’s grooming policy on the basis of religious proclamation on the sanctity of dreadlocks as indicated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Religious Garb, n.d.). The EEOC website that addresses religious garb and grooming in the workplace specifically lists Rastafarian dreadlocks as an example of a religious grooming practices that involves adhering to shaving or hair length observances. Furthermore, the EEOC websites also goes on to state that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all religious observances, practices, and beliefs and that the protection includes not only includes all traditional religions, but also any new and uncommon religions, even if that religion encompasses only a few people and doesn’t make sense to others. In regard to Fed-ex requiring Polk to either cut his hair or be assigned to a job with no direct customer contact and lower pay, the EEOC specifically states that assigning employees to a job with no direct customer contact non-customer contact due to actual or feared customer preference goes against Title VII's prohibition on limiting, segregating, or classifying employees based on religion, even if the employer has a unified grooming policy. Since customer preference is not undue hardship, the law requires Fed-ex to accommodate Price’s religious dreadlocks as a religious accommodation.
If I was the manager at Fed-Ex, I would carefully follow the EEOC guidelines drawing the line in terms of company policy regarding appearance and the religious implications of dress. For example, the EEOC guidelines state that religious accommodations may be denied if the accommodation creates a …show more content…
(n.d.). Retrieved August 06, 2017, from