27 N.Y.2d 279 (1970)
An employer’s uniformly applied grooming policy does not constitute religious discrimination unless it is demonstrated that the policy was motivated by discriminatory intent towards a specific religious creed.
Summary
Abdullahi Ibrahim, an Orthodox Muslim, was denied a baggage clerk position at Eastern Greyhound Lines because his religious beliefs required him to wear a beard, conflicting with the company’s clean-shaven policy for employees dealing with the public. He filed a complaint alleging religious discrimination. The New York State Division of Human Rights found Greyhound’s policy discriminatory, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the reversal, holding that a uniformly applied grooming policy, absent discriminatory intent, does not violate the Human Rights Law, and that employers are not required to accommodate every individual religious practice.
Facts
Abdullahi Ibrahim, an Orthodox Muslim, applied for a baggage clerk position at Eastern Greyhound Lines. He was informed by a company representative, McCarter, that the position required employees to be clean-shaven. Ibrahim explained that his religious beliefs mandated he wear a beard. Greyhound’s policy required employees dealing with the public to be “freshly shaven”. The company employed other Muslims.
Procedural History
Ibrahim filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging an unlawful discriminatory employment practice. A hearing commissioner ruled in favor of Ibrahim. The State Human Rights Appeal Board confirmed the commissioner’s decision. The Appellate Division reversed and annulled the Appeal Board’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether an employer’s uniformly applied clean-shaven policy, with no demonstrated discriminatory intent, constitutes unlawful religious discrimination under Section 296 of the Human Rights Law when it conflicts with an employee’s religious practices?
Holding
No, because the employer’s general policy, uniformly applied, does not constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice in the absence of actual discrimination based on creed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the company’s policy, requiring employees to be clean-shaven, was based on a desire to promote a positive business image and attract public support. The court emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting that the policy was motivated by discriminatory intent against Ibrahim’s religious creed. The court stated, “Policy resting on a desire to promote business by greater public support could justify the exclusion by an employer of beards and have no possible religious connotation.”
The court distinguished this case from Sherbert v. Verner, noting that Sherbert dealt with state action and the denial of a public benefit based on religious grounds. The court highlighted that the failure to accommodate every individual religious requirement does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the Human Rights Law, absent actual discrimination based on creed. The court further cited Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co., emphasizing the difference between religious discrimination and the failure to accommodate religious beliefs. The court concluded that requiring employers to accommodate the “special requirements of each individual’s religion” would create an unworkable standard. The court found no violation of the Human Rights Law because Greyhound’s policy was uniformly applied and not motivated by religious discrimination. The court stated, “The failure to make this kind of accommodation to particularization, which could assume many variations in appearance and in time schedules, is not in- itself or in the absence of actual discrimination based on creed, a violation of section 295 of the Human Bights Law.”