Webb v. City of Philadelphia
92 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,519, 562 F.3d 256, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7169 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII, a para-military organization, such as a police department, does not fail to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice when it enforces a neutral, no-exceptions uniform policy, because requiring an exemption would impose an undue hardship by undermining the department's mission to promote uniformity, neutrality, and public trust.
Facts:
- Kimberlie Webb, a practicing Muslim, has been employed as a police officer by the City of Philadelphia since 1995.
- On February 11, 2003, Webb requested permission from her commanding officer to wear a khimar, or headscarf, while in uniform and on duty.
- The request was denied based on Philadelphia Police Department Directive 78, which prescribes the official uniform and does not authorize any religious symbols or attire.
- On August 12, 2003, Webb arrived at work wearing the headscarf with her uniform.
- She refused her superior's direct order to remove the headscarf and was sent home.
- This sequence of events repeated for two more consecutive days.
- Following these events, the police department brought disciplinary charges of insubordination against Webb, which resulted in a thirteen-day suspension.
Procedural Posture:
- Kimberlie Webb filed a complaint of religious discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on February 28, 2003.
- On October 5, 2005, Webb filed suit against the City of Philadelphia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting claims under Title VII and state law.
- The District Court granted the City of Philadelphia's motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- Webb, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on her religious discrimination and sex discrimination claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with the City of Philadelphia as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Title VII, does requiring a police department to permit an officer to wear a religious headscarf with her uniform impose an undue hardship on the department when it has a strict, consistently-enforced policy of uniformity designed to project an image of religious neutrality and impartiality?
Opinions:
Majority - Scirica, Chief Judge
Yes. Requiring the police department to permit an officer to wear a religious headscarf with her uniform would impose an undue hardship. While Webb established a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the City of Philadelphia successfully demonstrated that accommodating her request would cause an undue hardship, defined as anything more than a de minimis cost. The court gave significant deference to the Police Commissioner's professional judgment that strict uniform adherence is critical for promoting the department's mission of impartiality, religious neutrality, and public confidence. Citing Supreme Court precedent like Kelley v. Johnson, the court treated the police department as a para-military organization where uniform regulations are entitled to a presumption of validity. The court distinguished this case from Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, where a 'no-beards' policy was selectively enforced with medical exceptions but not religious ones; here, Directive 78 contains no exceptions and is applied uniformly, thus avoiding the appearance of discriminatory intent. The non-economic cost of compromising the appearance of neutrality was sufficient to constitute an undue hardship.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high level of judicial deference granted to para-military organizations like police departments in establishing and enforcing uniform policies. It establishes that maintaining the appearance of religious neutrality and impartiality is a legitimate, overriding business interest that can justify refusing religious accommodations under Title VII. The case creates a critical distinction for future litigation: a neutral, uniformly-enforced policy with no exceptions is more likely to be upheld than a policy that allows for secular exceptions but not religious ones. This ruling provides a strong defense for public safety employers against religious accommodation claims that conflict with their uniform requirements.
Unlock the full brief for Webb v. City of Philadelphia