By   Wong Fleming, PC  On Jul 21, 2009  @09:22

Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7169 (3rd Cir. Apr. 7, 2009)

In Webb, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that a police officer’s request to wear religious garb with her uniform could not be reasonably accommodated without imposing an undue burden upon the City of Philadelphia.  Kimberlie Webb, a Muslim police officer employed by the City of Philadelphia, filed a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia on October 5, 2005.  The suit asserted three causes of action under Title VII, i.e., religious discrimination, retaliation/hostile work environment, and sex discrimination, and one cause of action under the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA), 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2401.

The underlying facts of the case are as follows.  Ms. Webb requested that she be permitted to wear a headscarf, i.e., a traditional head covering worn by Muslim women, while in uniform and on duty.  The police department denied her request citing Philadelphia Police Department Directive 78.  Directive 78 did not address headscarves, but clearly stated what constitutes the police uniform in specific detail.  On February 28 2003, Ms. Webb filed a complaint of religious discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.  While that matter was pending, Ms. Webb wore the headscarf to work.  When she was told to remove the headscarf, she refused and was sent home for not complying with Directive 78.  For the next two days, this scenario repeated itself.  Subsequently, disciplinary charges of insubordination were brought against Ms. Webb, and she was temporarily suspended for thirteen days.

The District Court found that Directive 78 and “[its] detailed standards with no accommodation for religious symbols and attire not only promote the need for uniformity, but also enhance cohesiveness, cooperation, and the esprit de corps of the police force.”  Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46872, at *11-12 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2007).  The District Court held that by allowing Ms. Webb to wear the headscarf with her uniform, the City would suffer an undue hardship.  The Court granted summary judgment for the City on all claims.  Ms. Webb appealed. 

“An accommodation constitutes an ‘undue hardship’ if it would impose more than a de minimis cost on the employer.”  Webb, supra, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7169, at *7 (citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977)).  The District Court held that Ms. Webb established a prima facie case of religious discrimination because her “religious beliefs were sincere, her employer understood the conflict between her beliefs and her employment requirements, and she was disciplined for failing to comply with a conflicting official requirement.”  Webb, supra, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7169, at *11.  Therefore, the burden was on the City to establish that accommodating Ms. Webb would constitute an undue hardship.  The City presented testimony regarding the need to present a uniform, impartial, religiously neutral police force.  The Third Circuit held that the District Court properly concluded that the City would suffer undue hardship under Title VII if required to grant Ms. Webb’s request for religious accommodation.