PBS高端访谈:最高法院权衡宗教信仰自由对商务着装的影响

 　　GWEN IFILL: Now we turn to the Supreme¹ Court, where the justices today heard the case of a woman who went to a job interview wearing a head scarf, and didn't get the job, but why? At the heart of the case, business rights vs. religious freedom.

　　As always, NewsHour contributor Marcia Coyle of "The National Law Journal" was in the court today.

　　How did this case get to the Supreme Court, Marcia?

　　MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": OK.

　　Well, Gwen, Title VII is our nation's major job bias² law, and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. It actually makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs or practices, unless that would create an undue³ hardship on the business itself.

　　A lower federal appellate court here ruled that Abercrombie & Fitch wasn't liable under Title VII when it failed to hire Samantha Elauf, who is Muslim and wears a head scarf, a hijab, because the appellate court said, an employer can only be liable if the employer receives direct notice from the job applicant⁴ or the employee that there is a need for a religious accommodation.

　　The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought the appeal to the Supreme Court challenging that rule, and that was the case that the court heard today.

　　GWEN IFILL: In this case, Abercrombie & Fitch, which kind of caters⁵ to the youth market and has a certain look…

　　MARCIA COYLE: Yes.

　　GWEN IFILL: … said that her hijab, or the way she was dressed for this job interview didn't match their look that they wanted their employees to have. Did they say at any point that it was because of religion?

　　MARCIA COYLE: No, Abercrombie & Fitch's lawyer today said that the so-called look policy is a religion-neutral policy, and that she wasn't hired just because her hijab would violate the look policy.

　　The arguments were very spirited today. And I would say that the Abercrombie & Fitch's counsel really bore the brunt of the questioning. It seemed as though more than a majority of justices were skeptical⁶ of that argument — of the company's argument.

　　GWEN IFILL: For example?

　　MARCIA COYLE: Well, here's the real problem.

　　The government believes that the burden should be on the employer, because the employer here — to take the first step in a job interview, because the employer has superior knowledge, knows the work rules. And if the employer senses, perceives, understands or knows that there could be a religious issue, the employer should just bring it up and start what Congress intended, a dialogue with the job applicant, to see if there was a religious issue, and is there a need for an accommodation?

　　Otherwise, if you put the burden on the employee or job applicant, as the lower court here did, they're reluctant to bring religion up in a job interview.

　　GWEN IFILL: Right.

　　MARCIA COYLE: An employer can remain silent, perhaps knowing there's a religious issue, discriminate⁷, and escape liability.

　　GWEN IFILL: Even Justice Alito, who usually comes down in favor of business in these kinds of cases, was among the skeptical ones today.

　　MARCIA COYLE: He was. And he's actually very concerned about religious discrimination in general, and he said — he really simplified this and said, look, why can't an employer just say — for one of the hypotheticals, you have somebody wearing a beard in front of you, why can't an employer just say during the interview, we have a work policy that excludes beards? Do you have a problem with that?

　　GWEN IFILL: Yes.

　　MARCIA COYLE: It doesn't draw religion into it right away. But it gives — then the onus⁸ shifts to the job applicant to say if he or she does have a problem with it.

　　GWEN IFILL: I have a very quick question for you, which is, we have had a couple of other religious freedom cases before the court, whether it's the Hobby Lobby case, whether they have the right to hire people — to give abortion⁹ benefits, or whether it was the — you mentioned the beard, a Muslim prisoner who had a beard.

　　MARCIA COYLE: Yes. Yes.

　　GWEN IFILL: Is this similar or different?

　　MARCIA COYLE: Well, it's different because it falls under a particular statute¹⁰ that does make it illegal to fail to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs.

　　But the court — I mean, the law is very clear, and the court, even under the First Amendment¹¹ and religious freedom, is quite protective of those freedoms. This is an important case. Business is watching it closely, too, because it believes that if it loses here, it's going to be forced into stereotyping¹² people who apply for jobs in order to avoid liability.

　　GWEN IFILL: Well, that's what we're going to talk about right now.

　　Thank you, Marcia Coyle, for this, as always.

　　MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, Gwen.

　　GWEN IFILL: For more on the two sides of the argument, we turn to Munia Jabbar, a civil rights attorney, formerly¹³ of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Rae Vann, who is an attorney with the Equal Employment Advisory¹⁴ Council.

　　Munia Jabbar, what is an employer's responsibility, in your opinion, in this case?

　　MUNIA JABBAR, Civil Rights Attorney: An employer's responsibility is not to bury their head in the stand when they are on notice that a potential employee will need a reasonable accommodation from them to work for them.

　　So, for example, in this case, there were supervisors¹⁵, employees who recognized the young woman's head scarf as a hijab, and that a hijab is a religious garment. Instead of engaging in a dialogue with her at all, or asking her, do you think you're going to have any problems doing this job, here is our look policy, they basically decided¹⁶ to avoid the issue altogether and not to extend her a job offer, even though otherwise she seemed to be a good candidate.

　　GWEN IFILL: And, Rae Vann, in your opinion what is an employee's or an applicant's responsibility in a case like this?

　　RAE VANN, Equal Employment Advisory Council: Well, the applicant in this context has an obligation to put the employer on notice of his or her sincerely held religious belief.

　　It would be very problematic, as a practical matter, to impose an obligation on employers, under a broad rule, the type of rule that the EEOC is proposing here, that the employer delve¹⁷ into, try to divine an applicant's religious beliefs based merely on how he or she presents him or herself at the interview.

　　GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask you this, Rae Vann. If an applicant was wearing a yarmulke, is that something the employer or the employee should have to mention, if for some reason the employee policy doesn't allow for head gear?

　　RAE VANN: I think it's very dangerous to get into the business of requiring an employer to engage in that conversation.

　　The cases like the yarmulke, like the example that Justice Alito provided in court today about the applicant who appears in a nun's habit, those are not necessarily difficult questions. The more difficult case comes when you have someone, for instance, who appears for a job interview covered with tattoos¹⁹ and is applying for a front-of-the-house position.

　　The employer doesn't wish to hire that person because that is not the image that it wishes to project in that particular position. Under the EEOC's formulation, the employer would have an obligation to inquire of that person, inquire as to whether or not the display of tattoos is based on a sincerely held religious belief.

　　GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask Munia Jabbar about that.

　　Are we talking about discrimination? Or are we talking about religious freedom? Or does the tattoo¹⁸ example hold up?

　　MUNIA JABBAR: I think the tattoo example can easily be dealt with, because if an employer is not concerned about the person's religion, but is instead concerned about the person's ability to do the job, I would think that the employer would just ask the job candidate, look, I have noticed you have some tattoos, here is our look policy, or these are our policies with respect to front-of-the-house or public interaction jobs. Would you have a problem complying with this in some way?

　　And that could surface the discussion.

　　GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask you another thing. Here's a — is it possible, or conceivable, that someone could be — appear for any reason in a head scarf and not be religious at all, and it not be a religious item at all?

　　MUNIA JABBAR: It's possible, but, again, I think that what would happen in that case is that the employer would ask, well, you know, again, here is our policy. I notice you are wearing a scarf. Would you have a problem complying with the policy for any reason?

　　And the other thing is that I think that it's naive²⁰ to think that employers at this point aren't savvy²¹ enough to be able to identify the most common hallmarks of religious grooming²². For example, some studies have shown that the general American public, over 90 percent, can recognize a hijab head scarf and how it often looks, covering the hair and the neck, when it is worn.

　　So I think that even if the applicant doesn't give verbal notice, the employer will often still be on notice, because they're going to see the scarf, and they're going to recognize it.

　　GWEN IFILL: Rae Vann, why don't you reply, respond to that?

　　RAE VANN: That may well be the case with respect to the yarmulke or even perhaps a hijab or a nun's habit, but that does not hold water when you talk about body piercings, tattoos, facial hair, hair length.

　　Those are all personal styles that can be attributed to or be the result of a sincerely held religious belief, or they could be symbols of a style, a style that an individual seeks to display. So, I think that, again, it's a complex issue, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is not about Abercrombie & Fitch not wanting to provide workplace reasonable accommodations to applicants²³ or employees or any employer wanting to do that.

　　It is what triggers the obligation to engage in the discussion. And we believe that there are numerous practical difficulties associated with requiring employers across the board to simply engage in the discussion based on some assumption or belief.

　　GWEN IFILL: We will see how the Supreme Court rules.

　　Munia Jabbar, civil rights attorney, and Rae Vann of the Equal Employment Advisory Council, thank you both very much.

　　RAE VANN: Thank you.

　　MUNIA JABBAR: Thank you.

1 supreme   

adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的

参考例句：

• It was the supreme moment in his life.那是他一生中最重要的时刻。
• He handed up the indictment to the supreme court.他把起诉书送交最高法院。

2 bias   

n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见

参考例句：

• They are accusing the teacher of political bias in his marking.他们在指控那名教师打分数有政治偏见。
• He had a bias toward the plan.他对这项计划有偏见。

3 undue   

adj.过分的；不适当的；未到期的

参考例句：

• Don't treat the matter with undue haste.不要过急地处理此事。
• It would be wise not to give undue importance to his criticisms.最好不要过分看重他的批评。

4 applicant   

n.申请人，求职者，请求者

参考例句：

• He was the hundredth applicant for the job. 他是第100个申请这项工作的人。
• In my estimation, the applicant is well qualified for this job. 据我看, 这位应征者完全具备这项工作的条件。

5 caters   

提供饮食及服务( cater的第三人称单数 )； 满足需要，适合

参考例句：

• That shop caters exclusively to the weaker sex. 那家商店专供妇女需要的商品。
• The boutique caters for a rather select clientele. 这家精品店为特定的顾客群服务。

6 skeptical   

adj.怀疑的，多疑的

参考例句：

• Others here are more skeptical about the chances for justice being done.这里的其他人更为怀疑正义能否得到伸张。
• Her look was skeptical and resigned.她的表情是将信将疑而又无可奈何。

7 discriminate   

v.区别，辨别，区分；有区别地对待

参考例句：

• You must learn to discriminate between facts and opinions.你必须学会把事实和看法区分出来。
• They can discriminate hundreds of colours.他们能分辨上百种颜色。

8 onus   

n.负担；责任

参考例句：

• The onus is on government departments to show cause why information cannot bedisclosed.政府部门有责任说明不能把信息公开的理由。
• The onus of proof lies with you.你有责任提供证据。

9 abortion   

n.流产，堕胎

参考例句：

• She had an abortion at the women's health clinic.她在妇女保健医院做了流产手术。
• A number of considerations have led her to have a wilful abortion.多种考虑使她执意堕胎。

10 statute   

n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例

参考例句：

• Protection for the consumer is laid down by statute.保障消费者利益已在法令里作了规定。
• The next section will consider this environmental statute in detail.下一部分将详细论述环境法令的问题。

11 amendment   

n.改正，修正，改善，修正案

参考例句：

• The amendment was rejected by 207 voters to 143.这项修正案以207票对143票被否决。
• The Opposition has tabled an amendment to the bill.反对党已经就该议案提交了一项修正条款。

12 stereotyping   

v.把…模式化，使成陈规( stereotype的现在分词 )

参考例句：

• I realize that I'm stereotyping. 我认识到我搞的是老一套。 来自辞典例句
• There is none of the gender stereotyping usually evident in school uniforms. 有没有人的性别刻板印象通常是显而易见的。 来自互联网

13 formerly   

adv.从前，以前

参考例句：

• We now enjoy these comforts of which formerly we had only heard.我们现在享受到了过去只是听说过的那些舒适条件。
• This boat was formerly used on the rivers of China.这船从前航行在中国内河里。

14 advisory   

adj.劝告的，忠告的，顾问的，提供咨询

参考例句：

• I have worked in an advisory capacity with many hospitals.我曾在多家医院做过顾问工作。
• He was appointed to the advisory committee last month.他上个月获任命为顾问委员会委员。

15 supervisors   

n.监督者，管理者( supervisor的名词复数 )

参考例句：

• I think the best technical people make the best supervisors. 我认为最好的技术人员可以成为最好的管理人员。 来自辞典例句
• Even the foremen or first-level supervisors have a staffing responsibility. 甚至领班或第一线的监督人员也有任用的责任。 来自辞典例句

16 decided   

adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的

参考例句：

• This gave them a decided advantage over their opponents.这使他们比对手具有明显的优势。
• There is a decided difference between British and Chinese way of greeting.英国人和中国人打招呼的方式有很明显的区别。

17 delve   

v.深入探究，钻研

参考例句：

• We should not delve too deeply into this painful matter.我们不应该过分深究这件痛苦的事。
• We need to delve more deeply into these questions.这些是我们想进一步了解的。

18 tattoo   

n.纹身，(皮肤上的)刺花纹；vt.刺花纹于

参考例句：

• I've decided to get my tattoo removed.我已经决定去掉我身上的纹身。
• He had a tattoo on the back of his hand.他手背上刺有花纹。

19 tattoos   

n.文身( tattoo的名词复数 )；归营鼓；军队夜间表演操；连续有节奏的敲击声v.刺青，文身( tattoo的第三人称单数 )；连续有节奏地敲击；作连续有节奏的敲击

参考例句：

• His arms were covered in tattoos. 他的胳膊上刺满了花纹。
• His arms were covered in tattoos. 他的双臂刺满了纹身。 来自《简明英汉词典》

20 naive   

adj.幼稚的，轻信的；天真的

参考例句：

• It's naive of you to believe he'll do what he says.相信他会言行一致，你未免太单纯了。
• Don't be naive.The matter is not so simple.你别傻乎乎的。事情没有那么简单。

21 savvy   

v.知道，了解；n.理解能力，机智，悟性；adj.有见识的，懂实际知识的，通情达理的

参考例句：

• She was a pretty savvy woman.她是个见过世面的漂亮女人。
• Where's your savvy?你的常识到哪里去了？

22 grooming   

n. 修饰, 美容，（动物）梳理毛发

参考例句：

• You should always pay attention to personal grooming. 你应随时注意个人仪容。
• We watched two apes grooming each other. 我们看两只猩猩在互相理毛。

23 applicants   

申请人，求职人( applicant的名词复数 )

参考例句：

• There were over 500 applicants for the job. 有500多人申请这份工作。
• He was impressed by the high calibre of applicants for the job. 求职人员出色的能力给他留下了深刻印象。