That issue came up in one employee’s recent lawsuit.

The employee was a Rastafarian, a faith that prohibited him from shaving or cutting his hair. His job duties included greeting and assisting customers, until the company adopted a new personal appearance policy in an effort to improve business.

The policy stated that any employees who were in contact with customers had to be clean-shaven and wear their hair neatly.

The employee told his boss he could not follow the policy but would still like to work with customers. However, deciding not to exempt him from the rules, the company changed his job duties to eliminate customer contact.

He sued for religious discrimination, claiming his new working conditions were less desirable.

The company tried to have the case thrown out, but a court let it move forward. Why?

The court refused to conclude that allowing an exemption from the policy would constitute an “undue hardship” or that placing him in a less desirable job was a reasonable accommodation.

The ruling conflicts with some other courts’ decisions, which allowed companies to terminate workers because of their appearance in front of customers, despite religious objections.

In this case, though, the company failed to prove it had considered any alternate possibilities besides letting him ignore the policy or putting him in the new job.

Cite: Brown v. F.L. Roberts and Co.

Now a court’s going to tackle the question — and the answer could cost Wal-Mart a million bucks.

For roughly a year, John Kennedy worked in the deli for a Wal-Mart-owned Sam’s Club store. During that time, he made numerous complaints about being required to work on Sundays.

Kennedy is a devout Catholic, and told managers he needed Sundays off to attend Mass. He claims the company agreed to his scheduling request when he was hired but forced him to work anyway.

After making the complaints to management, Kennedy was fired. He’s suing the company for $1 million.

The law requires companies to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.

We’ll keep you posted on how the case is decided.

The facts:

An employee refused to work on Saturday for religious reasons. The company said that was fine, as long as he found a replacement. But he said it was also against his religion to ask someone else to work on a Saturday. The company said to work, find a replacement or be fired. The employee sued for religious discrimination.

The employer said:

It didn’t force the employee to work on Saturday — but company policy asked employees to find their own replacements when they needed days off. That was a reasonable enough accommodation.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employee.

Why: Though in many companies, it’s the employee’s responsibility to find a replacement for a shift, the court ruled the company should have made an exception to the policy in this case.

After the first accommodation was refused, the company could have tried other alternatives, such as getting a supervisor to ask employees to change shifts or post a sign asking for volunteers. If those had been tried first, the company may have met its burden.

Courts don’t require employers to take unreasonable steps to accommodate workers’ religious beliefs. But if the company tries one accommodation that doesn’t work, that doesn’t mean they’ve done everything the law requires. Generally, more alternatives need to be considered.

Cite: EEOC v. Texas Hydraulics, Inc.

The facts:

An employee sued after being fired for refusing to sign the company diversity policy. The employee insisted he couldn’t sign anything that required him to “respect the differences of all employees.” His reason: His new religion found homosexuality to be deviant. He supervised a worker who was openly gay, but never discriminated against him. In fact, last year, he promoted him.

The employer said:

If the supervisor can’t follow company policy, he should be fired.

Who won? The supervisor.

Why: A judge said the supervisor had been unfairly fired because of his religious beliefs. Since he had never discriminated against gays, he shouldn’t have been terminated.

Bottom line: No discrimination, no violation.

Dealing with employees’ religion can be touchy, but for a general guide you can ask: Does the belief lead to:

1. conduct that treads on the rights of others in the workplace, or
2. actions that are harmful to business?

Without one of those factors, it’s hard to prove that someone’s conduct in connection with religious beliefs deserves to be disciplined.

Cite: Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband