Running Head: RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING

Religious Discrimination in Hiring

Religious Discrimination in Hiring The initial concept for this paper was to research and examine reverse discrimination in hiring practices by businesses owned by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in Utah County. I was trying to find research regarding LDS member owned businesses and preferential treatment to other LDS members when hiring. Through the process of this research I realized that my question was skewed, it wasn’t reverse discrimination at all. The population of Utah County consists of 97.5% members of the LDS church, and 88.7% of the population adheres to the LDS church (The Association of Religion Data Archives, 2010). In this context I will examine the preferential hiring practices of adherent religious member owned businesses when recruiting potential employees. Religion is a protected class, and discrimination of a protected class is a primary concern for the human resource industry. The importance of discrimination laws to human resources comes from a number of reasons:
Out of motives ranging from concern for fairness to the desire to avoid costly lawsuits and settlements, most companies recognize the importance of complying with these laws. Often, management depends on the expertise of human resource professionals to help in identifying how to comply. (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2011, pp. 72-73)
A company found in violation of discrimination laws can be sued and penalized with compensatory and punitive damages between $50,000 and $300,000, depending on the size of the company (The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2013). This issue is also important to recruiting and retention aspects of human resources. Hiring based on religious beliefs could affect the overall performance of the company, negatively and positively, and the diversity and cohesion of the workforce. The history of religious discrimination and persecution is vast and most is beyond the scope of this paper, but it should be noted that elements of religious discrimination are evident in world events such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Holocaust. The first amendment of the United States constitution ensures religious freedom, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” but there have been laws that blatantly discriminate against religions, such as: the Religious Crimes Codes of 1883 and 1892, which threaten to imprison any Native American for performing religious ceremonies (Irwin, 1996). The most significant protections against religious discrimination in employee hiring came in the form of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 703 (a) states:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (United States Congress, 1964)
Section 702 goes on to protect the rights of religious institutions to hire based on religion, but not private companies owned by members of a particular religion, “Shall not apply to...a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation” (United States Congress, 1964). This seemingly legal discrimination makes judging religious discrimination a very difficult proposition. Why would an employer religiously discriminate in hiring practices? The reasons might not always be blatantly discriminatory. It is human nature to be attracted to, and hire, similar and like-minded people. Often a member of the same religion would intrinsically share similar traits, world-view, and values. It has also been studied that similar groups and teams can increase cohesion and productivity if they are more similar than dissimilar.
The optimistic view holds that diversity will lead to an increase in the variety of perspectives and approaches brought to a problem and to opportunities for knowledge sharing, and hence lead to greater creativity and quality of team performance. However, the preponderance of the evidence favors a more pessimistic view: that diversity creates social divisions, which in turn create negative performance outcomes for the group. (Mannix & Neale, 2005)
It can also be noted that often businesses hire for the traits of a member of a particular religion and not specifically for the membership of that religion. Many government agencies and casinos hire returned LDS missionaries because many of them have the ability to speak two languages, and have the reputation of being honest and hard-working. Hiring for desired traits is exactly what employers can, and should, do, but this can also lead discrimination after hiring.
Future promotions are one example of discrimination after hiring. A class action lawsuit was filed against the F.B.I in which a group of 311 agents felt discriminated against in promotion opportunities by a perceived “Mormon Mafia” at the top of the Los Angeles F.B.I offices. A ruling was found in favor of the 311 agents (Shenon, 1988). While religious discrimination had not occurred initially by hiring devout LDS members, over time these employees worked up into the hierarchy and seemed to discriminate against other F.B.I. agents that were not LDS when they had the opportunity. The most obvious reason for a company to avoid religiously discriminatory hiring practices is the fact that it is illegal, and steep fines and damages are a distinct possibility if found guilty. Many researchers have found that diversity, when managed appropriately, can increase creativity and productivity. Researcher Dean Elmuti states, “Diversity is an organizational effort that aims to modify organization standards, procedures, and management practices that hinder creativity, productivity, and advancement of all employees” (Elmuti, 1996). Another disadvantage of discrimination in hiring is the missed opportunity of excellent employees. Rejecting an applicant simply because of religious differences may mean passing up a very capable and valuable employee. Any form of discrimination in hiring ultimately narrows the scope of the employee search, which also limits the quality and quantity of potential employees. The benefits and disadvantages of religious discrimination for the potential employee are largely mirror images of the benefits and disadvantages for employers. Most new employees would tend to integrate into a new workplace easier and faster when the majority of the workplace is like-minded individuals. Researchers describe this theory by stating “Similarity on attributes such as attitudes, values, and beliefs will facilitate interpersonal attraction and liking. Empirical research has supported that surface-level similarity tends to predict affiliation and attraction” (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Depending on the perspective this theory can be both a positive and negative in religious discrimination hiring practices. Most employees would prefer to work for an employer that share the same values as them, and exclusively hiring employees with similar values would, in theory, produce a more conflict free workplace. Many new employees quickly discover that they may not be a good fit for the company, and they may decide to leave by their own choice, but an employer not hiring a qualified person for a job because of religious affiliation to spare them of this trouble is not a viable reason to discriminate. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigates and litigates in matters of workplace discrimination. In the court case EEOC v. Voss Electric Company, the EEOC argued that Voss Electric Company participated in blatant, and extensive religious discrimination in their hiring practices. Voss Lighting announced a position for an "operations supervisor" at its Tulsa location through the website of a Tulsa-area church attended by the current supervisor. Edward Wolfe learned about the position and applied for the job although he did not himself attend the church. Voss’s current supervisor met with Wolfe and gathered personal information about his religious beliefs and practices. Wolfe provided his resume and other professional information; the supervisor forwarded only Wolfe’s personal religious information to the branch manager and recommended that he be hired. When the branch manager interviewed Wolfe, he was asked to identify every church he has attended over the past several years; where and when he was "saved" and the circumstances that led up to it; and whether he "would have a problem" coming into work early to attend Bible study before clocking in. According to Wolfe, the branch manager expressed dissatisfaction with his responses to the religious questioning. Despite being considered qualified for the position, Wolfe did not get the job. Voss continued to seek applicants and eventually hired an individual whose religious ideology matched that of the company and its leadership (EEOC v. Voss Electric Company, 2012). Edward Wolfe was awarded an $82,500 settlement from Voss Electric Company. In response to the settlement EEOC attorney Barbara A. Seeley said, "Refusing to hire a qualified job applicant because his religious beliefs do not comport with those of the employer's leadership is illegal, even if the for-profit company purports to have a religious mission or purpose" (EEOC, 2013). A similar case was decided in 2008 that dealt more directly with hiring and promotion discrimination against non-Mormons in a company not owned or operated by a church. The EEOC charged that the University of Phoenix engaged in a widespread practice of discriminating against non-Mormon employees who worked as enrollment counselors in the University’s Online Division (EEOC v. University of Phoenix, Inc., and Apollo Group, Inc., 2008). Enrollment counselors are responsible for recruiting students and are largely evaluated based on the number of students they recruit. Testimony revealed that managers in the Online Enrollment Department at the University of Phoenix discriminated against non-Mormon employees, and favored Mormon employees, in several ways, including: (1) providing the Mormon employees better leads on potential students; (2) disciplining non-Mormon employees for conduct for which Mormon employees were not disciplined; (3) promoting lesser-qualified or unqualified Mormon enrollment counselors to management positions while repeatedly denying such promotions to non-Mormon enrollment counselors; and (4) denying tuition waivers to non-Mormon employees for failing to meet registration goals, while granting the waivers to Mormon employees. The ruling provided monetary relief of $1,875,000 for 52 individuals, as well as required HR policy changes and discrimination training (EEOC, 2008). The history of religious discrimination in hiring, and discrimination in general, tends to show that over time laws and regulations are slowly including more and more protected classes. From the 13th and 14th amendments, to the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008, laws are becoming progressively more protective (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2011, p. 62). Probably the most obvious non-protected class is sexual orientation. Many cases have been filed for protection under Title VII for sexual orientation, but these cases have up to this point proven unsuccessful. “Court rulings from early sexual harassment cases, involving homosexuals as plaintiffs, suggest that the court views Title VII under the Civil Rights Acts, is not written to protect workers on the basis of sexual orientation but solely on the premise of gender” (Troung & Kleiner, 2001). Other legislation has been put before congress multiple times regarding sexual orientation starting in 1974, and every year since 1994.
Rep. Bella Abzug introduced the first federal “gay rights bill”, the Equality Act, into the House of Representatives (H.R. 14752). The Act proposed to add the categories of sex, sexual orientation, and marital status to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1994, gay and lesbian activists and Congressional leaders chose to shift their strategy by whittling down the anti-discrimination bill to cover only employment discrimination (Vetulli, 2010).
Support for legislation to provide sexual orientation protection seems to be building. Some states have legalized gay marriage, a concept completely unheard of 50 years ago. Trends indicate further protections extending to transgender individuals as well.
Discrimination by marital status has changed drastically over the last century. Indeed, many widely accepted types of relationships that are seemingly average and normal today would have been deemed illegal not too long ago.
Just 50 years ago, a Black man in the South risked his life if suspected by Whites of looking the wrong way at a White woman. A White woman faced rejection by her family and disgrace in the eyes of White society for having a child by a Black father. In 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, Black/White marriage was still illegal in 17 states (McClain, 2011).
Opinions and perspectives are shifting. Not too long ago, women and African Americans were denied access to vote. Discrimination based on age, gender, and religion was commonplace. Slowly over time laws have been put in place that protects these classes. There is no reason to believe that this change will not continue into the future by creating a protected class based on sexual orientation. It would seem likely that a class that has been discriminated against in the past would be less likely to discriminate. Surveys conducted regarding race and religiosity factors in Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, found:
For the most part, Blacks and Whites have similar attitudes toward gay marriage. When religiosity levels are low, Blacks and Whites have similar levels of Prop 8 support; at higher levels of religiosity, whites are substantially more likely to express anti-gay marriage sentiments than Blacks are (Block & Seltzer, 2012).
Whether or not this finding correlates to religiosity and hiring practices is unclear, but it is interesting to note that in some regards discrimination in the past can lead to lower levels of discrimination on other issues. The LDS church has a long history of suffering discrimination. After the founding of the church, it was slowly pushed west by harassment until finally settling in the Utah territory in 1847. This harassment and discrimination is well-known and well-documented. It would be suspected that this long history of discrimination would lead to an empathetic perspective regarding discrimination of other groups, but this hasn’t always been the case. It was reported that LDS church members, and the church itself, had financially backed efforts to get Proposition 8 passed in California. LDS members are free to financially support any effort that they choose, but the LDS church long denied that they directly provided any financial support to the “Yes on Prop 8” movement. An investigation after Proposition 8 was passed led the LDS church to release amended financial records showing the actual contributions (Wildermuth, 2009). It seems to be a slight conflict of interest when a highly discriminated against, tax-exempt entity is financially supporting a movement which aims to discriminate. The racial and ethnic diversity of Utah County is changing. Employers will need to have a representative sample of the population working for them. Hiring discrimination is already illegal, but the difficult to prove discrimination in hiring practices by LDS member owned companies that give preferential treatment to other LDS members will gradually decrease as the population of Utah, and more specifically Utah County, becomes more diverse. There will also be a need for a more diverse workplace as these same companies seek wider and more varied markets for the products and services. Between 2000 and 2010, the only race to decrease in relative percentage was White, all other races increased or stayed the same, with the largest being Latino which increased 3.8% (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 2011). Hispanic populations tend to be Catholic, so it would seem that as the Hispanic population increases the relative population percentage of White LDS percentage should decrease.
After researching several contributing factors to preferential hiring practices by LDS member owned businesses, the likelihood and extent of such practices are still unclear for me. At the core of this issue is how difficult it is to prove. I know that I have personally heard anecdotes about people being asked “What ward are you in?” I understand that these experiences are generally the exception and not the rule, but it does give evidence of the culture at some workplaces in Utah County. I also understand that most of these types of comments are basically innocuous, they are not meant to interrogate the respondent into admitting allegiance to the local church, but just casual conversation. It must be understood that these types of comments can be perceived as threatening, especially in such a homogenous area like Utah County.
The level of this discrimination goes a bit further. A recent study shows that the Provo and Orem areas have the highest disparity between median incomes for men versus median incomes for women. The average women’s income was only 61.6% as a percentage of men’s income (Weigley & Sauter, 2013). It would seem that women are definitely being discriminated against regarding pay. This does not bode well for a non-LDS woman trying to find a job in Utah County. I have heard stories of women being told in the workplace to “Go home, where you should be, and be a mother” or “You should go to relief society to learn how to be a mom instead of working here.” People are entitled to their opinion, but these types of comments are absolutely inappropriate for a work environment. Again, these types of comments are the exception and not the rule, but I believe if there wasn’t a bit of truth in them, then the income gap between men and women in Utah County would be considerably smaller.
One of the common responses to these types of accusations is “Why don’t you move, if it’s so bad?” There are advantages and disadvantages to every area. There are marginal benefits to living in Utah County, and there are marginal costs of Utah County. Every citizen of this area must weigh these costs and benefits and determine what costs they are willing to bare in exchange for added benefits. The fact that the disadvantage we are discussing currently is a federally recognized illegal practice makes the issue more complicated. Religious discrimination is illegal, and the argument of “You can just move if you don’t like it” is not a valid one.
Many will view progressive discrimination laws as a bad thing. Many argue that things were “Better back in the old days.” The problem is that “The old days” consists of a majority marginalizing the minority until that behavior is finally viewed by the majority as untenable and federal laws are enacted to protect that minority. Unfortunately, more often than not someone’s “Good old days” was someone else’s “Very bad days.”
Does preferential hiring by LDS member owned businesses occur in Utah County? Of course it does. It happens in a wide and varying spectrum of ways, but it absolutely happens. It happens when someone lists a “Two year ecclesiastical assignment” on a resume. It happens when a potential employee lists their bishop as a personal reference. It happens with “Mormon Realtors” and “Missionary Discounts”. It happens when general conference is discussed like the super bowl during lunch at the office. Does it happen when a hiring manager and a business owner are making a final decision between two applicants? No one can be sure. I would expect practices and attitudes on preferential hiring to change and progress, much like changes toward other protected classes over the years, as the population becomes more diverse and a younger generation moves to the forefront of hiring decisions. There are some proven cases and many personal stories, but the current extent and frequency of this issue remains unclear.

References
Block, R., & Seltzer, R. (2012). Understanding the Complex Influence of Religiosity on the Race Gap in Support for Proposition 8. Review of European Studies , 84-94.
Bureau of Economic and Business Research. (2011, December). Presentations and Special Studies. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from www.bebr.utah.edu: http://www.bebr.utah.edu/ Documents/2010_County_Race_Ethnicity_Profiles.pdf
EEOC. (2008, November 10). UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX TO PAY $1,875,000 FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS AGAINST NON-MORMONS. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from eeoc. gov: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-10-08.cfm
EEOC v. University of Phoenix, Inc., and Apollo Group, Inc., CV 06-2303-PHX-ROS (U.S. District Court - Arizona 2008).
EEOC v. Voss Electric Company, 12-CV-330-JHP-FHM (U.S. District Court - Northern Oklahoma June 6, 2012).
EEOC. (2013, March 13). Voss Lighting to Pay $82,500 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from eeoc.gov: http://www.eeoc. gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-19-13a.cfm
Elmuti, D. (1996). Revising affirmative action and managing cultural diversity challenge in corporate America. Equal Opportunities International , 1-16.
Irwin, L. (1996). Themes in Native American Spirituality. American Indian Quarterly , 309-327.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What Differences Make a Difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 31-55.
McClain, C. S. (2011). Family Stories: Black/White Marriage During the 1960s. Western Journal of Black Studies , 9-21.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2011). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shenon, P. (1988, October 1). Judge Finds F.B.I. Is Discriminatory. The New York Times .
The Association of Religion Data Archives. (2010). Utah County Membership Report. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from Religious Traditions, 2010: http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/r/c/ 49/rcms2010_49049_county_name_2010.asp
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2013). Remedies For Employment Discrimination. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from eeoc.gov: http://www.eeoc.gov/ employers/remedies.cfm
Troung, F. T., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). New Developments Concerning Homosexual Harassment in the Workplace. Equal Opportunities International , 32-36.
United States Congress. (1964). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from eeoc.gov: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Vetulli, E. (2010). A Defining Moment in Civil Rights History? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Trans-Inclusion, and Homonormativity. Sexuality Research & Social Policy , 155-167.
Weigley, S., & Sauter, M. B. (2013, March 7). The Worst-Paying Cities for Women. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from 24/7 Wall Street: http://247wallst.com/2013/03/07/the-worst-paying-cities-for-women-2/
Wildermuth, J. (2009, January 31). Mormon church reports $190,000 Prop. 8 expenses. The San Francisco Chronicle .