In Webb v. City of Philadelphia (20090, Kimberlie Webb, a police officer with th

Question

In Webb v. City of Philadelphia (20090, Kimberlie Webb, a police officer with the City of Philadelphia since 1995, requested in 2003 to wear a head scarf (khimar) with her uniform, owing to her religious beliefs that require women to cover their hair at all times. Her request was denied by the police department; the policy did not authorize the wearing of any religious symbols or clothing as part of the uniform. Webb filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1972. While her complaint was pending, she wore the khimar to work. She was suspended for 3 days and was later charged with insubordination of her commanding officer’s orders. The Court of Appeals in 2009 upheld the police departments’ refusal to accommodate Webb’s request. The court ruled that providing any accommodation would create an undue burden on the department and would intrude on the cohesiveness, cooperation, and esprit de corps.

Discuss the case and it’s outcome in light of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and religious expression.

Explanation / Answer

Definitely each and every relationship have a freedom of expression in terms of providing free speech as well as in form of religion. All of these approaches can be easily done if it is being done in a civil manner. If this approach is being used for the professional work which directly relates to the security as well as a major part of the society which can affect the society in a negative way, implementation of such a specific freedom for getting influenced by religion or any other substance should not be allowed.
In the specific case court correctly ruled that availability of other options for allowing a specific religion and it's believed to be implemented would create nuisance in the specific society as well as it would also create differentiation in the different religious belief of different people. Ruling of the court was not against the free speech but in the betterment of the society which should be the most appropriate way of creating a decision for the specific incident.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.