Religious Diversity in the Workplace: The Case for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Published date01 February 2020
DOI10.1177/0032321719839316
Date01 February 2020
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719839316
Political Studies
2020, Vol. 68(1) 207 –223
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321719839316
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Religious Diversity in the
Workplace: The Case for
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Élise Rouméas
Abstract
The workplace is a focal point for debates about religion and public life. This article examines
the question of religion at work, and how to fairly resolve the conflicts it generates. Specifically,
it advocates for the use of alternative dispute resolution to address these conflicts. Alternative
dispute resolution refers to a set of dispute processing methods, mainly arbitration and mediation.
Unlike litigation, these procedures rely on the consent and cooperation of the parties involved. I
argue that alternative dispute resolution is best conceived of as a desirable complement to the rule
of law rather than a cheaper alternative. It conveys a distinctive approach to procedural fairness,
which is attentive to individual circumstances, and it frames the relationship between disputants in
a cooperative way. Alternative dispute resolution is thus a valuable tool for the accommodation of
religious diversity in the professional world.
Keywords
religion, exemption, accommodation, workplace, mediation, arbitration
Accepted: 25 February 2019
Introduction
The workplace is a focal point for debates about religion and public life. Following the
European Court of Justice’s ruling in March 2017, the topic of headscarves at work has
become increasingly prominent in the media.1 Samira Achbita was dismissed from her
job as a receptionist at G4S, a private security firm in Belgium, for wearing a headscarf
at work, which violated a newly adopted workplace regulation prohibiting any visible
signs of political, religious or philosophical beliefs. The Luxembourg Court ruled that the
workplace regulation did not discriminate against workers specifically on the grounds of
religion, given that it required all workers to ‘dress neutrally’.2 Some commentators sug-
gested that this decision could be associated with the rise of far-right populist movements
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Corresponding author:
Élise Rouméas, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, Manor Road
Building, Oxford OX1 3UQ, UK.
Email: elise.roumeas@politics.ox.ac.uk
839316PSX0010.1177/0032321719839316Political StudiesRouméas
research-article2019
Article
208 Political Studies 68(1)
in Europe and an anti-Muslim climate. ‘Far-right leaders surely would have pounced had
the court ruled differently’, speculated a New York Times journalist.3 While some work-
place controversies involve religious dress or symbols, others concern daily prayers, holy
days, conscientious objection to occupational requirements, proselytism, special dietary
restrictions, and so on. The modern firm appears to have become, unwillingly, a labora-
tory of interfaith coexistence.4
The theme of religious diversity in the workplace has been addressed by political theo-
rists examining the case for exemptions from laws and regulations (Barry, 2001; Jones,
2016; Laborde, 2017; Laborde and Bardon, 2017; Nussbaum, 2008; Patten, 2017; Quong,
2006; Rosenblum, 2000; Seglow, 2011), and by legal scholars who focus on religious
freedom and non-discrimination law (Ahdar and Leigh, 2013; McCrea, 2010; Vickers,
2016). Authors have distinguished between arguments for and against exemptions; they
have clarified the competing interests of the parties involved and offered innovative
rationales to balance them. Some have argued that legal exemptions are better construed
as ‘exercises in adhockery’ (Jones, 2017: 173).5 The wide diversity of employers, ranging
from small family businesses to large-scale multinational corporations, coupled with the
multiplicity of religious claims makes it difficult to design uniform regulations. Yet,
‘exercises in adhockery’ should not be conducted without procedural safeguards. I sug-
gest that we should go further than clarifying the interests and normative considerations
at stake in religious accommodation, to investigate procedures that could challenge old
arrangements and produce new ones.
This article tackles the general question of how conflicts about religion should be
fairly addressed by examining the specific setting of the workplace.6 When this type of
conflict arises in a private firm, what is the best method to address it? In fact, procedures
have been introduced to alleviate the burden on the legal system and to find mutually
satisfactory solutions to employment conflicts more generally. These methods are com-
monly referred to as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR refers to a set of dispute
processing methods other than litigation, mainly arbitration and mediation. They rely on
the consent of the parties involved. Such tools are uncontroversial when applied to con-
flicts that do not involve the violation of a right. However, many workplace disputes
involve a breach of rights. An employee may be refused a promotion because of age, race,
gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or any other protected characteristic. In such
cases, the use of ADR appears more troubling. The risk is that alternatives to litigation
would come at the expense of the protection of rights. An early conciliation might resolve
an employment dispute to the detriment of workers’ rights.
Despite these drawbacks, this article advocates for the use of ADR in addressing
workplace disputes involving religious claims. It argues that ADR conveys a distinctive
approach to procedural fairness, which excels at individualised judgements. ADR is
best conceived of as a desirable complement to the rule of law rather than a cheaper
alternative. It is also well suited to navigate the normative grey zone surrounding reli-
gion at work.
I begin by showing why dispute resolution is needed to accommodate religion in the
workplace. The right to religious freedom at work is not absolute, and not all demands of
accommodation are entitlements of justice. Religious claims face competing considera-
tions, such as the employer’s economic freedom or co-workers’ interest in fair treatment.
The right to resign is not a sufficient safeguard of religious freedom at work, and leaving
a job can be very costly. Dispute resolution is needed to fairly arbitrate between compet-
ing claims.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT