Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Correction officer trainee dismissed after failing to keep his beard trimmed

Correction officer trainee dismissed after failing to keep his beard trimmed
Vales v State of New Jersey, CA3, No. 07-2971, opinion filed August 12, 2008 [marked ?Not Precedential? and not published]

Juan Valdes, a former corrections officer trainee, was discharged from the New Jersey Department of Corrections Officer Training Program for failing to keep his beard within a one-eighth inch allowance granted to him by the Academy as an accommodation of his religious obligations as a Muslim. Valdes alleged unlawful discrimination, termination, and retaliation in violation of federal civil rights laws.

The Academy has a written policy prohibiting any facial hair for its corrections officer trainees. This policy has been justified by the Academy for two reasons: 1. Compliance with federal and state health regulations for the use of respirator masks; and 2. Esprit de corps through uniformity of appearance.

Valdes had requested an exemption from this policy to comply with his religious obligations as a Muslim. Because the Academy initially denied Valdes? request, he filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. This complaint was settled as the result of the Academy entering into an agreement with Valdes, under which he would be allowed to keep facial hair up to one-eighth of an inch during the training program. Valdes failed to comply with the terms of the settlement regarding the length of his facial hair, which resulted in his being discharged from the training program.

In the litigation that followed, the Federal District Court found Valdes was justifiably discharged since there were at least three uncontested instances during which he exceeded the one-eighth inch limit and dismissed Valdes? First Amendment claim and his Title VII claims of unlawful discrimination, termination, and retaliation.

The District Court indicated that the Academy?s no-facial hair policy ?was facially neutral and generally applicable, and burdened religious conduct only incidentally.? Therefore, the Academy?s policy was subject to the ?rational basis review? standard.? This standard merely requires that the policy be shown to be rationally related to a legitimate government objective.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the lower court?s ruling. It said that the decision was rationally related to compliance with state and federal regulations concerning the use of respirator masks that might be used in the performance of the duties of a correction officer and with the employer?s interest in maintaining an ?esprit de corps.?

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/072971np.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on October 22, 2008 (boomark / email).