In my point of view, the religious discrimination in the Webb case on textbook is totally different with the religious discrimination claims discussed in the article -- Religious-Discrimination Claims on the Rise, published on the Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2013.
According to the Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, employees is protected to get a reasonably accommodation when there is a conflict between their religious belief and work requirements as long as it will not bring an undue hardship. The claims for religious discrimination in the article all said employees were ...view middle of the document...
Besides, employers should reasonably accommodate their religious belief when employees inform the conflicts between work and belief. Therefore, these employees can win lawsuits.
In the Webb case, Webb sued her employer for religious discrimination because she was disciplined for refusing to remove her headscarf, however, she lost. The authority of city—police department, which has religious neutrality, hired Webb as a police officer. The public always believes police is a best team that enforces the law strictly and acts with highly efficiency and discipline. Wearing uniform is beneficial to build a better this image of police among the public. Wearing the headscarf on work time will bring negative effects both inside and outside of the department. As a result, if the department accepted Webb’s request for wearing a headscarf with her uniform, it would cause an undue hardship. On the other hand, the Supreme Court allows police department to use the uniform policy, which not considers any religious clothes as a part of uniform. Wearing the uniform is a part of her job. So when Webb was employed by the city, she should know this rule and need to obey it. Therefore, Webb could not win this lawsuit.
All in all, the difference between the Webb case and the religious discrimination claims discussed in the article is whether the request based on employee’s religious belief will bring undue hardships to employers and their business.