(Published July 6, 2009)
I was involved last week in a very interesting discussion about religious accommodation. At issue: An employee did not want to use his employer's biometric hand scanner that was used for time in/time out reporting, citing religious reasons.
Now, what I know about biometric scanners you can put in a thimble and it'll rattle, but evidently (and feel free to correct me if you know more about this than I do) the scanner takes several measurements of the hand, which are then run through an algorithm to create a unique multi-digit identifier of the hand. The employee was afraid that the identifier might come up to be 666, which, according to a certain verse in Revelations, is the mark of the beast. If that mark appears on the forehead or the hand, it will bar you forever from the Kingdom of Heaven, according to some denominations.
Several of the participants in the conversation were unfamiliar with the limits of this belief, and wondered about license plates, house numbers, etc., which might use this particular three-digit number. I provided the Biblical reference and explained the limits. I should probably make clear that I do not personally subscribe to this belief, but I do know people who do, which is more widespread than I think most people realize. What's new, since the technology is new, is the identification of the biometric scanner as potentially creating the mark.
I do not deny that this particular issue, to those of us who do not adhere to this belief, seems pretty off the wall. But when you come right down to it, it's not really our job as HR managers to decide what beliefs warrant accommodation. This is a very real issue with catastrophic consequences in the afterlife to some people. Just because I don't agree with them, doesn't mean I can shrug off their request. If they make a request for a religious accommodation, my job as an HR manager is to determine whether or not a reasonable accommodation exists, not to tell employees that their beliefs are of no consequence.
Apparently, there is case law directly on point to this issue — biometric scanner and all — in Canada. The employer was found to be in violation of the Canadian version of Title VII by not accommodating the employee. In this case, the employee had asked to be accommodated with a swipe card and password. The court found that to be reasonable because it would not create an undue hardship on the employer. While I have not seen a U.S. case addressing this issue, the Canadian case certainly shows in what direction a court can point.
Naturally, if the specific circumstances are such that there is no reasonable accommodation the employer can provide, the employer is not required to simply excuse the employee from whatever the policy in question is. But it's clear that we have to make a sincere effort to determine if a reasonable accommodation exists, and to not simply dismiss the employee's request if we find it too bizarre.
Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.
Home
