For more information please call  800.727.2766

 

Discriminatory Exceptions Doom Grooming Policy

Alexander Smith worked for the Atlantic City Fire Department. The city prohibited firefighters from growing beards because they needed to wear air masks to protect themselves from hazardous air. These “self-contained breathing apparatuses “(SCBAs) form a seal around the face to keep the dangerous air out. Strict grooming standards ensure the seal can be formed. Men could have neatly trimmed sideburns and mustaches, but they could not wear beards or goatees. Captains could allow deviations from the policy. Administrative employees were not scheduled for the SCBA fit tests required for firefighters. Smith began his employment as a firefighter but became an Air Mask Technician. He remained on the trucks during fires. Smith is religious and informed the city that his religion required him to grow a beard. He requested an accommodation. The city demanded that Smith shave, threatening to suspend him without pay if he did not.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard Smith’s claim that the city violated his Title VII rights by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation and retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity. The appellate court concluded that Smith’s right to free exercise of his religion and reasonable accommodation had been infringed. Rules that infringe on religious freedoms must be neutral, generally applicable, and not involve other rights. The circuit court noted that the city’s grooming policy allowed firefighters to grow facial hair or mustaches while off duty, which did not interfere with the SCBA seal. It also did not require the administrative staff, like Smith, to undergo SCBA fit tests. Lastly, fire captains had the discretion to allow firefighters to deviate from the policy. The Third Circuit concluded that the last two variables meant the policy was not generally applicable. It was therefore subject to higher scrutiny. The city failed to meet its strict scrutiny burden because it did not establish that wholly denying Smith’s request was the least restrictive means to achieve its goal of firefighter safety.