Camille Olson Speaks Before House Committee on Religious Freedom Act

Camille Olson’s testimony on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce before the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee of the House Education and Workforce Committee has been widely reported in the press. On November 10, 2005, the Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives held its first hearing of the proposed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) which would amend Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Olson’s testimony on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was prepared with the input of a team of Seyfarth attorneys, including Lynn Kappelman, Joan Gale, Condon McGlothlen and Gary Glaser, along with support from the alternate resource group, particularly Ina Silvergeld. At the hearing, Olson expressed concerns with aspects of the proposed Act, suggesting that current legislation already afford employees sufficient protection.

Coverage of the hearings quoting Olson’s remarks was included in national and regional media outlets, including the American City Business Journals, which operate print and online journals in 41 cities, as well as The State News Service, The Fort Wayne Journal, The Congressional Quarterly and The Daily Labor Report. The Daily Labor Report related:

“The final witness at the hearing was Camille Olson, a management attorney with Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago who spoke on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. She said WRFA `appears to go too far in terms of which accommodations must be deemed reasonable, especially in the case of dress codes and the scheduling of employees.’ She also expressed concern that the legislation `would require employers to accept accommodations of individual employees that may create a hostile work environment for other employees’ and said the bill `raises numerous questions of practicality and fairness.’

Some accommodation requests are easy to carry out, while others `can be very difficult for employers,’ Olson said. She asserted that `under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the accommodation obligations under Title VII, employer obligations are in fact quite substantial.’ Recent court decisions show `the growing tension between accommodating employee requests to adhere to their religious beliefs in the workplace, and an employer's desire to maintain a place of business that does not impose an employee's religious views on customers as well as meet the company's obligation to maintain a work environment free from harassment for all employees,’ Olson said.

WRFA would require employers to determine the essential functions of jobs without including `practices relating to clothing or taking time off,’ yet `there are certainly instances where dress codes and scheduling are essential functions of a job,’ Olson said. She pointed out that dress and grooming rules for certain jobs are required for safety reasons. The ability to work any day of the week during the busy pre-Christmas shopping season `might well be an essential function of jobs in the retail sector,’ Olson said. ”