must health club give religious member an exemption from the club’s clothing rules?
Lucille Roberts health Club Limited.
The Federal District Court of New York has just ruled this week.
Yosefa Jalal argued that Lucille Roberts fitness club violated Article 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 --
Federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion and national origin in some public places --
By implementing a dress code for her dress for religious motives.
The court concluded that there was no evidence that the club discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs;
On the contrary, the allegations of fact seem to simply indicate that she was treated differently because she insisted on wearing a dress which, according to the defendant, was inappropriate gym dress.
\"Although Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly requires employers to give reasonable religious exemptions to generally applicable rules of work without any actual cost (
This is the requirement for \"religious accommodation)
There is no such requirement in the second title;
Other lower courts hold the same view.
By the way, the particular clothing dispute here is about Jalal wanting to wear \"knees --
Length, fitting but comfortable dress, \"something allegedly opposed by the health club. (
The club\'s written dress policy does not explicitly prohibit skirts, but informal and verbal policies can be developed and implemented in public places, and even action can be taken in accordance with the caseby-
As long as there is no evidence that their goal is for people based on their religion, the case is OK. )
The club said the skirt was a safety hazard: Jalal said, \"it is impossible for the skirt to interfere considering the length and fit of the skirt --
And no interference-
\"Lucille Roberts encourages women to use any fitness equipment\"
Jalal wears alternative clothes (A long, loose t-shirt)
This, if any, will bring about greater security issues.
She also claimed that the health club \"banned her because she showed religious humility and ignored her disgusted stereotypes about women who were\" strong, sexy and confident \"(
Here is the slogan of the club).
Please note that this is an analysis under federal law.
Some states do interpret their public accommodation regulations as requiring religious exemptions, seeg. , Yeager v.
Ohio Civil Rights CouncilOhio Ct. App. 2002);
Indeed, the Chui thing (Ohio Civ. Rts. Comm’n 1986)
It is believed that a restaurant is in violation of the law and enforcedhead-coverings-for-
The man\'s policy for a Muslim customer is that he is wearing a headscarf required by religion.
But when I read the regulations of New York State and New York City, they (
Like federal law.
Religious accommodation is required at work, but not in public accommodation;
Jalal can still sue in state court under these regulations, but I suspect she will win.
For those curious, Jalal described himself as \"an observant young woman who abides by the rules of Jewish humility.
She was wearing a skirt and tights, covering her legs and shirt, covering her elbows and walking to her neck.
\"I\'m not sure if Orthodox Jewish women generally agree with Jalal that skirts are necessary for other women to exercise and short skirts are enough (
Although this view does not seem unheard).
However, if a religious exemption is required in public places, it will depend on the sincere religious beliefs of the individual of the particular claimant, rather than whether or not religious believers agree to those beliefs. Thanks to Prof.
Howard Friedman (Religious provisions)