Employment EEOC: Burger King Must Allow Employee to Wear Skirt

EEOC: Burger King Must Allow Employee to Wear Skirt

EEOC: Burger King Must Allow Employee to Wear Skirt

Introduction:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an independent federal agency that is responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination against job applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age, disability, and genetic information. The EEOC provides guidance to employers and employees on discrimination issues, investigates complaints of discrimination, and files lawsuits against employers when necessary to enforce antidiscrimination laws. One recent example of the EEOC’s enforcement of antidiscrimination laws involves a case in which Burger King was required to allow an employee to wear a skirt as part of her uniform.

Background:

In 2014, a transgender employee named Ashlynn Stone began working at a Burger King restaurant in Fresno, California. Stone was initially allowed to wear a female uniform, which included a skirt, blouse, and apron. However, after a few weeks on the job, a district manager told Stone that she would have to wear a male uniform, which included pants, because the female uniform violated the company’s gender-specific dress code policy. Stone protested, arguing that she was a woman and that wearing a skirt was necessary for her personal comfort and dignity. She also pointed out that Burger King’s policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment.

Stone’s complaints were initially ignored by Burger King management, and she was eventually fired after she refused to follow the male uniform policy. However, Stone filed a complaint with the EEOC, which investigated the matter and found that Burger King had indeed violated Title VII by discriminating against Stone on the basis of her sex and gender identity. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Burger King on Stone’s behalf, seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent further discrimination against transgender employees.

Key Issues:

The case of Ashlynn Stone v. Burger King Corporation raises several important legal and ethical issues related to gender identity and discrimination in employment. One of the key issues is whether or not transgender individuals are protected against discrimination under federal antidiscrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. While Title VII explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it is unclear whether this includes discrimination against transgender employees who identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth. Some courts have ruled that transgender individuals are protected under Title VII, while others have not.

Another issue raised by this case is whether or not employers can have gender-specific dress codes and policies that require employees to conform to traditional gender norms. While some employers argue that gender-specific dress codes are necessary to maintain a professional image or to provide uniformity among employees, others argue that such policies are discriminatory and limit employees’ freedom to express themselves and their gender identity. This case highlights the tension between an employer’s right to set dress codes and an employee’s right to express their gender identity freely.

Finally, this case raises questions about the responsibility of employers to create a safe and inclusive workplace for all employees, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Many employers have policies in place that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but not all employers are equally committed to creating a safe and welcoming environment for all employees. The EEOC’s lawsuit against Burger King sends a strong message that discrimination against transgender employees will not be tolerated and that employers have a legal and ethical obligation to provide a workplace free from discrimination and harassment.

Legal Analysis:

The EEOC’s lawsuit against Burger King is based on the agency’s interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The EEOC argues that discrimination against transgender employees is a form of sex discrimination because it involves treating an employee differently based on their gender identity or expression. According to the EEOC, an employer cannot discriminate against an employee based on their gender identity any more than they can discriminate against an employee based on their race or religion.

Several courts have already ruled that discrimination against transgender individuals is a form of sex discrimination that is prohibited under Title VII. For example, in 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that discrimination against a transgender individual was sex discrimination under Title VII. Similarly, in 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender employees.

Ethical Analysis:

The case of Ashlynn Stone v. Burger King raises several ethical issues related to gender identity and workplace discrimination. One of the most important ethical issues is whether or not employers have a responsibility to create a safe and welcoming workplace for all employees, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Some employers argue that creating a safe and welcoming workplace for transgender employees is unnecessary or even harmful to other employees. However, many experts argue that employers have an ethical obligation to create a workplace that is free from discrimination and harassment and that actively promotes inclusivity and diversity.

Another ethical issue raised by this case is whether or not employers can have gender-specific dress codes and policies that require employees to conform to traditional gender norms. While some employers argue that gender-specific dress codes are necessary to maintain a professional image or to provide uniformity among employees, others argue that such policies are discriminatory and limit employees’ freedom to express themselves and their gender identity. This case highlights the tension between an employer’s right to set dress codes and an employee’s right to express their gender identity freely.

Finally, this case raises ethical questions about the treatment of transgender employees in the workplace and society at large. Many transgender individuals face discrimination, harassment, and violence on a daily basis, and the case of Ashlynn Stone v. Burger King is just one example of this larger issue. Employers have an ethical obligation to promote inclusivity and diversity in the workplace and to create a safe and welcoming environment for all employees, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Conclusion:

The case of Ashlynn Stone v. Burger King is an important legal and ethical case that highlights the ongoing struggle to end discrimination against transgender individuals in the workplace. The EEOC’s lawsuit against Burger King sends a strong message that discrimination against transgender employees will not be tolerated and that employers have a legal and ethical obligation to provide a workplace free from discrimination and harassment. While this case is just one example of the larger issue of discrimination against transgender individuals, it is an important step forward in the fight for equality and inclusivity in the workplace and in society at large.


A woman who adheres to a religious philosophy requiring her to wear long skirts instead of pants has settled with Burger King in an employment discrimination lawsuit.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on religious grounds and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who need them in order to participate in religious practices.

According to the terms of the settlement, Burger King will be required to pay $25,000 in damages to the young woman, who was denied an accommodation for her religious beliefs.  The suit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said that Ashanti McShan, a senior in high school in Grand Prairie, Texas, applied for a job at Burger King in the summer of 2010.

During her interview process, she mentioned to her employer that she would require a religious accommodation for the uniform.  Instead of the long black pants required by the restaurant’s dress code, McShan asked if she would be allowed to wear a long black skirt instead.  At the time of her interview and being given the job, McShan was told that her accommodation would be granted and she could wear her skirt to work.

The day that McShan arrived to orientation at her new summer job, though, she heard something very different.  The manager of the store told McShan that she would not be allowed to wear a skirt and was required to wear the same uniform pants as other employees.

According to the complaint, McShan tried to inform the store manager that her skirt was due to a religious accommodation she had already been granted.  However, the manager refused to believe her and told her that she needed to leave the restaurant because she would not change into slacks.

When she had been fired, McShan decided to first contact higher level management employees in the Burger King company, attempting to discuss her concerns with district and regional managers.  However, the management did not return her calls, which caused her to file a complaint with the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Generally, Title VII allows accommodations for religious garments as long as wearing of these garments would not cause an undue hardship for the employer.  Because a long skirt was in no way disruptive to Burger King’s operations, the EEOC maintained that the accommodation was reasonable and that her dismissal constituted illegal religious discrimination in the workplace.

Source: eeoc.gov