Avon Automotives Inc. makes chaplains available to employees who want to discuss personal issues, but the company is careful not to infringe on any of its employees' beliefs in the process.

The chaplains approach workers only at their request, stressed Dale Rosser, human resources vp for the Cadillac, Mich.-based company.

"They are not to approach anybody who does not want to be approached, and they are not in there preaching or holding prayer meetings," said Mr. Rosser. "That's the way we have approached it, and we have maintained oversight of what is done to make sure that's the way it's handled."

Avon's situation is illustrative of one many employers face in as they strive to address their employees' spiritual needs while, at the same time, avoiding charges of religious discrimination in an increasingly pluralistic society in which religion has become a focus of attention.

Meanwhile, the number of charges of religious discrimination filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is growing rapidly, and many expect the total to continue to accelerate (see chart, page 32).

Additionally, proposed federal legislation that would require employers to further accommodate their employees' religious needs-a measure that has broad bipartisan support-would increase employers' burden, say many observers (see story, page 33).

A growing problem

The issue in the workplace is governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion and requires them to "reasonably accommodate" workers' religious beliefs, unless an employer can show that doing so would create an undue hardship.

According to the EEOC, although religious discrimination charges still account for only a small percentage of the total number of complaints filed with the agency, their number rose 77.7% between fiscal year 1992 and 2004, from 1,388 to 2,466 complaints.

Employers must make sure not only that employees' own religious rights are protected but also that workers do not attempt to impose their beliefs on others. Observers say problems often revolve around issues of religious accommodation, including questions of religious garb and time off.

For example, last month, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Sikh Coalition, both based in New York, filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in Brooklyn on behalf of a New York Metropolitan Transit Authority train conductor, Kevin Harrington, who charged that a policy requiring him to brand his turban with an MTA logo amounts to religious discrimination. Five Sikh station agents, who are seeking to join his suit, filed a complaint with the EEOC as the first step in that process, said a CCR spokeswoman.

In addition, employers must deal with employees' contentions that some employment activities violate their religious beliefs, such as hospital workers who may object to the performance of abortions by their facilities.

Adding to the controversy is the ongoing national debate on the role of religion, say several observers, who predict that the number of complaints and the level of litigation will continue to grow.

Richard Lehr, a labor and employment attorney at Lehr Middlebrooks Price & Vreeland P.C. in Birmingham, Ala., noted that when there is "a very strong, defined religious belief in terms of policy" that comes from the White House as well as from some members of Congress and when "specific religious beliefs are given a kind of paramount treatment," whether it involves the issue of stem cell research, school prayer, abortion or the fate of Terry Schiavo, then religion "becomes a continuing issue of national discourse" that leads to more claims.

Charles Warner, an attorney with Porter Wright Morris & Arthur in Columbus, Ohio, said it is regrettable that, in today's increasingly pluralistic society, "more and more people are saying, 'It's my religion or the door,' basically."

"That is a form of intolerance that is going to create more friction and tension in the workplace," Mr. Warner said.

In one recent case, the Montreal-based Bombardier Aerospace Corp. in April agreed to pay a former employee $159,000 in connection with a religious discrimination suit brought by the EEOC.

The EEOC had charged that the company discriminated against one of Bombardier's regional sales directors because of his Mormon religion and then fired him for complaining about the discrimination.

"There's a growing divide among the general populace" on the issue of religion, "and I think organizations that represent both sides are increasingly attempting to make their positions win out, if you will, and, at the same time, exhorting their members to make their voices heard," all of which leads to litigation, said David Barton, a Phoenix-based attorney with Quarles & Brady.

Religion in the workplace "used to be a taboo topic," and it was assumed employees left their religious beliefs and practices at the door when they came in, explained Michelle Weber, a program associate for the New York-based Tanenbaum Center's Religious Diversity in the Workplace program.

But religion is a major factor in the lives of a great many people, and "more people are trying to figure out how they can bring it with them," said Ms. Weber.

Management, though, is sometimes either not prepared for these requests or holds "to the idea that it is not something that belongs in the workplace," she said.

Another major contributing factor is a backlash against Muslims-or those perceived to be Muslim-following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Fifty years ago, U.S. employers generally "weren't dealing with people needing breaks to pray frequently during the day," and, even with the best of intentions, many "simply don't know how to deal with those issues, and they're not getting good guidance on how to do it," said Bret A. Cohen, an attorney with Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo in Boston.

In an Aug. 4 decision in Davis vs. Mothers Work Inc., for example, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that the plaintiff, a Muslim woman who had been terminated from her position, had presented substantial evidence that she was routinely treated differently than other employees because of her religious attire. The judge denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the claims of religious and racial discrimination.

Employers "need to promote an environment where there is an understanding and respect of views with which employers may not only differ but find absurd but (that) may very well be legally protected," said Mr. Lehr.

There is a distinct line between religious expression in the workplace and proselytizing, stressed Michelle Phillips, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in White Plains, N.Y.

"Everyone has the right to their own sincerely held religious beliefs, but no one has the right to impose those beliefs on someone else," Ms. Phillips said.

A matter of policy

Establishing the right policy helps, say observers.

"A good diversity policy, in conjunction with a very well drafted nondiscrimination and nonharassment policy-which defines those words broadly to include concepts such as one person harassing another person about their religion-can go a very long way to developing a very tolerant and inclusive workforce that also has the benefit of, hopefully, avoiding punitive damages should anybody ever sue over what some manager has unfortunately done that may be discrimination," said Mr. Warner.

An employer's best defense in litigation is to make sure it has a policy forbidding discrimination, that it is well known to its employees and that it carefully considers and analyzes all requests for religious accommodation, said Jennifer Walt, an employer attorney with Littler Mendelsohn in San Francisco.

Do not be rigid, observers say. If someone asks for a day off for religious reasons, "my advice to the employer is, don't get annoyed with it. It's a day; give it to him," said Aaron Maduff, a plaintiff attorney with Maduff, Medina & Maduff in Chicago who also counsels employers in this area.

Mr. Maduff acknowledged that an employer may be justified in its objection to the time off, but he noted that the company could wind up spending $100,000 to defend a subsequent suit. "You just swallow it and go on," he advised.