Mr. Polk and others should be allowed to violate the grooming policy on the basis of the religious proclamation on the sanctity of dreadlocks and have the opportunity to still interact with the customers. In order to symbolize his new religious path, Mr. Polk grew his dreadlocks. It would be considered a violation of the title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 if a company discriminates an employee and fails to accommodate his religious beliefs. According to the case which involved FedEx, the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer started an investigation on the termination of several employees of the FedEx who had dreadlocks as an expression of their religious beliefs. They reached an agreement that FedEx should revise its policies and hence allow employees to request an exemption on the policies regarding religious beliefs. The company had to make several changes to its personal grooming policies and also educate the company managers on how to handle the…show more content… Also discharging the religiously observant employees and also failing to promote them on the basis of their sincere religious practices of dreadlock wearing. FedEx forces the observant employee’s to make a choice between their religion and their livelihoods against what the title VII says about employees. The grooming policy of FedEx provide that the male employees who work in customer contact positions cannot wear beards, braids, dreads, ponytails, earrings even when the styles are religious bona fide practices. According to title VII employers are supposed to permit their employees to express their religious beliefs unless those beliefs are able to cause an undue hardship on the employer. FedEx does not and did not reasonably accommodate its employees even though the reasons did not have in anyway imposed hardship on the employer (United States & Gensler,
