The plaintiffs were refused religious exemptions and were fired because their faiths did not allow them to shave their facial hair. For Singh, a practicing Sikh, cutting his hair means going against his religion. He explained this to the company, yet his exemption was still denied and his request to use a PAPR instead of a KN95 was refused. The EEOC accused the two companies of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects against religious discrimination. Free exercise is also a relevant issue as they were fired for following their religious beliefs. This case raises the question: does AMR and GMR’s no facial hair policy violate Singh’s Free Exercise of Religion?
I believe that this case does violate Singh’s Free Exercise of Religion, as the policy places a direct burden on Singh and the other paramedics, and the companies refused to offer less restrictive means. The facial hair policy forces Singh and the other paramedics to choose between their career and their religious beliefs, which shows the significant burden placed upon them. While AMR and GMR do have the compelling interest of safety in requiring all of their paramedics to wear the KN95 respirators, there is the option for them instead to wear PAPR, which are approved by OSHA and are used by other paramedic companies. In fact, the PAPR was created for first responders and healthcare workers who are unable to shave their facial hair for medical reasons to still remain protected. GMR and AMR should have allowed religious exemptions for these paramedics, as there was clearly a less restrictive means of carrying out their compelling interest.
In 1986, the Supreme Court decided Goldman v Weinberger, which said the Air Force’s ban of religious head coverings did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The reasoning behind this was that the Air Force was under no “constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment,” meaning that the military’s compelling interest in national security allows them to be held to a different standard than the average citizen (298). Essentially, the Air Force was allowed to violate their members’ First Amendment rights because of their overall mission of protecting United States citizens. However, this lawsuit does not involve the military, but rather private companies that hire civilians. First responders, while incredibly important for public health, are not the same as members of the military, and should not be treated as such. While soldiers may have to sacrifice their First Amendment rights in the name of national security, paramedics’ rights should continue to be secured and protected. AMR and GMR should not be allowed to create their own rules that have no regard for the United States Constitution.
This case is important as it discusses the rights of first responders, a group of ordinary citizens that provide life-saving services. While there should be strict regulations for paramedics to follow in the name of preventing further spread of illness, it is important that their fundamental rights be protected in the process. If there is a way for all paramedics to wear a safe and effective respirator, yet still account for their religious beliefs, then such practices should be allowed.
https://www.firehouse.com/ems/news/21285409/nationwide-suit-filed-against-amr-gmr-claims-ban-of-facial-hair-discriminatory
Great post! Although at first this did feel like a violation of Singh's freedom of religion, I might argue that Singh does not have the right to employment at AMR and GMR. The medical field is held to a very strict regiment of grooming and protective coverings because of the health risk which could be associated with not following these rules. Although OSHA might approve of the alternative face mask, if AMR and GMR feel as though it is in the best interest of the public health and safety (the public good), then I would have to agree with AMR and GMR in this case.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Marlee! I agree that this was a violation of Singh’s free exercise rights. There is clearly a substantial burden on him if he shaves his beard, which conflicts with his religion. Furthermore, although there is a compelling state interest to ensure paramedic and patient health and safety, there is a less restrictive means to achieve this while not infringing on Singh’s free exercise. The KN95 respirator was approved by OSHA and Singh should receive permission to use this mask.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting post to read as it is centered around first responders and their position within the community which is crucial. I believe that Singh's free exercise rights are being violated especially given the fact that he went out of his way to get a special mask, one that had been approved and that properly fit over his facial hair and was still rejected. There is an obvious burden being placed on Singh seeing as how this act is directly intertwined with his faith. Though I do believe this violates Singh's free exercise rights, I do not believe he is being singled out because this is a rule that individuals from other religions were also met with the same rejection.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post. I think this is an interesting case. The EEOC accused the two companies of violating Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was stated to protect against religious discrimination. It was stated that the plaintiffs were refused religious exempts and fired because their faith does not allow them to shave their hair, stating that cutting their hair means going against their religion. Singh requested to use the PAPR which was medically approved and was denied the request and fired. In addition to this, other paramedics of different religious faiths were fired or hired for refusing to shave their hair as well. I think this is a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Although health and safety can be an example of something that can interfere with The Free Exercise Clause, the PAPR is medically approved- and specifics around this were not discussed.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post to read! I agree that this was a substantial burden upon him to force him to chose between shaving his beard or being a paramedic. Especially since there was another alternative mask he could have worn. The paramedic company was clearly discriminatory because there was no uniformity purpose for wearing the same mask if they all did the same thing.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I believe the medical field has special rules. I believe this does not violate the constitution. Although their is a burden when you choose to be a medical professional you chose to serve people in need and give up certain protections you may have.
ReplyDeleteI agree, AMR and GMR’s no facial hair policy does violate Singh’s Free Exercise of Religion right. Since there was an obvious less restrictive mean, being the PAPR mask, and AMR and GMR still denied the request it is obvious that they are discriminating against Singh based on his religious beliefs. Your comparison between this case and Goldman v Weinberger was very well done. I also agree that the military has a more compelling argument to deny their members religious exemptions due to the nature of the military and the sacrifices it entails for our country. First responders, although their job is equally as important as military officers, should not be treated the same in terms of being able to deny their employees religious exemptions.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your stance! While medical practices have a variety of different rules, religious accommodations can be achieved as long as a patient is not at risk. I also agree with Julia that there was discriminating based solely on Singh’s religious beliefs. I believe they are denying him his Free Exercise because there is a substantial burden placed upon him when they force him to go against his religious beliefs or give up his career. Additionally, no other less restrictive means were allowed or suggested.The court case mentioned in comparison to this case was a good example, however, I believe the rules for the military do differ since national security is at stake.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! I also agree with you that the paramedic companies rule on facial hair does violate the plaintiffs constitutional and First Amendment rights. You make a very valuable point about the less restrictive means that GMR and AMR could take in this situation. When looking at free exercise cases it's important to look at both substantial burdens and compelling state interests. In this situation I think it's clear the plaintiffs are experiencing a direct substantial burden, and in terms of the compelling state interest there is less restrictive means. The less restrictive means is using the the other masks, PAPR. I thought you also brought up a good point when using Goldman v Weinberger as a precedent because even though the desired outcome in this case is different from the outcome in Goldman v Weinberger I still think this case is valuable in examining the different magnitudes of a compelling state interests.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that both sides of this issue have strong arguments. I think that these paramedics were discriminated against when let go from their jobs because of their religion under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I also do believe that a substantial burden was placed upon the paramedics when having to choose between shaving their facial hair to wear a KN95 or choosing to not do so and be let go from their jobs, violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. While I understand the compelling interest the state may have to make them wear KN95 masks as opposed to the PAPR’s, I think that the PAPR is a good alternative and this exemption should have been approved. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when first responders were in high demand, to let go of paramedics who were willing to work and protect themselves with masks approved by OSHA was not a smart decision. In regards to Goldman v. Weinberger, the state had a valid reason to not approve the exemption as having a strong military to protect the common people is important. However, providing an exemption to these paramedics should have occurred as the state doesn’t have a strong enough compelling reason not to because it might weaken the safety of the public. If anything it would strengthen it, with more first responders to help people. Overall, I do believe a substantial burden was placed on the first responders, violating their ability to freely exercise their religion, as the state did not have a strong enough compelling argument to not approve the exemption.
ReplyDeleteI am stuck between both sides. In the facts behind Singh, his employers are directly violating his free exercise of religion. There are obviously less restrictive means that the employers could have taken instead of firing him. The corporations directly discriminated against his religious viewpoints and did not understand the true sincerity and history of his religion. The corporations are forcing an individual to ignore his beliefs to listen to their instructions. On the other hand, I see that the need for no facial hair in the medical field by a professional is a compelling state interest. Having features that could potentially transfer and infect patients should be at the forefront of the corporations' minds. While the medical field can be exempt from certain limitations of the First Amendment to protect patients, I still believe that this was a violation of Singh's Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment.
ReplyDelete