University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Workplace religious discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the hijab

(USC Thesis Other)

Workplace religious discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the hijab

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 1

Workplace religious discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the Hijab

by
Ed Hasan

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Ed Hasan

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 2

DEDICATION
To my parents, who passed away far too young. You sacrificed so much to make sure I had the
opportunities that you didn’t. I hope that I have made you proud.

To my wife, who was the inspiration for the topic of my dissertation, and who is responsible for
motivating me to embark on this long and challenging journey. You are my best friend, my
backbone, and my world. You’ve made me a better husband, father, and person. It was your love,
encouragement, and support that helped me accomplish this.

To my brother, a committed educator, who served as my role model and parental figure. Without
your guidance and encouragement, I would not have grown up to be the person I am today. You
gave up so much to make sure that I had a normal life after my parents passed away. I will
forever be indebted to you.

To my mother-in-law, whose love, encouragement, and prayers always gave me hope.

To my children, who served as a reminder of what is truly important in life. Your hugs, kisses,
and smiles made this process so much easier for me. I hope this project will motivate you to do
something bigger and better for our community.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank Allah (God), the All-Mighty, the All-Wise, who blessed me with a
loving family and support system, who removed all barriers, and who gave me the strength and
resolve to complete this program.

Thank you to my sisters and brothers in the Muslim community who supported me along the
way. Your support was instrumental to spreading the word about my study.

Thank you to my dissertation committee, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, Dr. Shafiqa Ahmadi, and
Dr. Omar Ezzeldine for pushing me to be a better researcher. I want to extend my utmost
gratitude to Dr. Ezzeldine for serving as my mentor throughout this journey.

Thank you to my classmates for making this experience so special to me. Your friendships were
vital.

Thank you to all of my professors who helped shape my experience at USC. You taught me how
to think differently and critically and pushed me to be the best researcher that I could be.

Finally, a special thanks to Imam Mohamed Magid, Dr. Afra Ahmad, Dr. Courtney Malloy,
Rehan Dawer, and Iram Parveen Bilal. Each of you served in a critical role during this process.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Introduction to Problem of Practice 9
Importance of Addressing the Problem 9
Purpose of the Project and Questions 10
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Global Goal 11
Review of the Literature 11
Definition of Hijab 11
Religious Significance 12
Opponents of the Hijab 12
Symbolic or Cultural Significance 13
Pervasiveness of Workplace Religious Discrimination Toward Muslims: EEOC Data 14
Specific Cases of Discrimination Toward Muslim Women Who Wear the Hijab 15
Protections Toward Religious Workplace Discrimination: Constitutional Rights 16
Statutes 16
History of Title VII and the EEOC 17
Inception 17
Gaps in Title VII 18
Knowledge, Motivation Organizational, and Social Influences 19
Knowledge 20
Motivation 21
Organizational and Social Influences 26
Interactive Conceptual Framework 31
Data Collection and Instrumentation 34
Surveys 34
Data Analysis 35
Findings 37
Knowledge 38
Motivation 42
Organizational and Social 46
Solutions and Recommendations 49
Knowledge 50
Motivation 51
Organizational and Social 54
Conclusion 56
References 58
Appendix A: Protocols 65
Appendix B: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Survey 68
Appendix C: Demographics 69
Appendix D: Correlation Matrix 71
Appendix E: Linear Regression of Factual Knowledge Score on Predictors 75
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 5

Appendix F: Linear Regression of Procedural Knowledge Score on Predictors 76
Appendix G: Linear Regression of Self-Efficacy Score on Predictors 77
Appendix H: Linear Regression of Attribution Score on Predictors 78
Appendix I: Linear Regression of Cultural Model Score on Predictors 79
Appendix J: Linear Regression of Cultural Setting Score on Predictors 80
Appendix K: Implementation and Evaluation Plan 81
Appendix L: Limitations and Delimitations 93
Appendix M: Validity and Reliability 94
Appendix N: Ethics 95

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Assumed Influences 30
Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Participants 37
Table 3: Distribution of Participant Responses to Factual Knowledge Items 39
Table 4: Distribution of Participant Responses to Procedural Knowledge Items 40
Table 5: Distribution of Participant Responses to Self-Efficacy Items 42
Table 6: Distribution of participant responses to Attribution items 44
Table 7: Distribution of participant responses to Cultural Model items 46
Table 8: Distribution of participant responses to Cultural Setting items 48
Table 9: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 82
Table 10: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Muslim Women Who
Wear the Hijab in the Workplace 84
Table 11: Required Drivers to Support Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace 85
Table 12: Components of Learning for the Program 88
Table 13: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 89
Table 14: Immediate Feedback Survey 90
Table 15: Delayed Feedback Survey 91

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Presentation of conceptual framework. 32
Figure 2. Distribution of mean scores on factual knowledge scale by age category. 40
Figure 3. Distribution of mean scores on procedural knowledge scale by age category. 41
Figure 4. Distribution of mean scores on attribution scale by ethnic category. 45
Figure 5. Distribution of mean scores on cultural model scale by age category. 47

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 8

ABSTRACT
Muslim women who wear the hijab have been denied employment opportunities, terminated
from jobs, and have faced hostile work environments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
the pervasiveness of workplace religious discrimination in the united states toward hijab-wearing
women and to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, organizational, and social barriers or
influences to protecting their religious rights in the workplace. The study utilized a quantitative
methods design for data gathering and analysis to evaluate the assumed barriers or influences.
Utilizing a snowball sampling approach, an online survey intricately linked to the conceptual
framework of this study was disseminated to hijab-wearing women in the united states who were
either employed, previously employed, or were seeking employment. There were 443 survey
respondents, and 336 respondents met the study’s eligibility criteria. The findings of this study
suggest that several of the assumed barriers or influences may impact the ability for hijab-
wearing women to protect their religious rights in the workplace. Implications of the study
include the need for employers to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace and assist in
eradicating workplace religious discrimination through various tools and resources.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 9

INTRODUCTION TO PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
In the aftermath of the events that took place on September 11, 2001, Muslim women
who wear the hijab have been fired from jobs, harassed, and denied access to public places
(American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2008). A hijab is a headscarf worn by Muslim
women, and the Muslim women who wear the hijab are sometimes known as hijabis (Ghumman
& Ryan, 2013). The right of Muslim women to wear the hijab in the workplace is protected by
the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. I.;
U.S. Const. amend. IV), and by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, despite the
constitutional and statutory protections, in the year following the September 11th terrorist
attacks, the average number of complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) by Muslims in the workforce increased 172% (EEOC, 2016), and many of
those complaints were filed by Muslim women who wear the hijab (Moore, 2007). In 2015, the
EEOC reported that workplace discrimination toward Muslims was still on average 168% higher
than it was prior to the September 11th terrorist attacks (EEOC, 2016). Although the EEOC has
tracked data pertaining to the number of religious workplace discrimination complaints filed by
Muslims, it does not provide specific data as to what percentage of those complaints are filed by
Muslim women who wear the hijab, nor has there been sufficient tracking of the impact of the
discrimination toward them.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of religious workplace discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the
hijab is important to evaluate for several reasons. First, according to Pew Research Center, there
were about 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States in 2015, which is roughly 1% of the
total population; and by 2050, that number is expected to double (Mohamed, 2016). Women
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 10

represent about 1 million of the Muslim population, and roughly 43% of them wear the hijab
(Pew Research Center, as cited in Khalid, 2011). Second, despite the constitutional and legal
safeguards that protect religious practices, religious discrimination continues to be a major
challenge in the American workplace (Ghumman, Ryan, Barclay, & Markel, 2013), which is
evident in the increasing number of complaints that the EEOC has received from Muslims in the
workplace (EEOC, 2016).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the prevalence of workplace religious
discrimination in the United States toward Muslim women who wear the hijab and whether they
know the legal protections and resources available to them to address the discrimination. The
analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation, organizational, and social influences related to
achieving this social goal. While a complete evaluation project would focus on all stakeholders,
for practical purposes the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis are all Muslim women
who wear the hijab who are employed, previously employed, or were seeking employment in the
United States.
1. To what extent are Muslim women who wear the hijab experiencing discrimination in the
workplace?
2. Do they understand the legal protections and resources available to address the
discrimination?
3. What are their knowledge, motivation, organizational, and social influences related to
achieving this goal?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational and social practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, organizational, and social resources?
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 11

Stakeholder Group of Focus and Global Goal
The salient stakeholder group for this study is Muslim women who wear the hijab who
are employed, were employed, or were seeking employment in the United States. The global
goal for this study is that all Muslim women who wear the hijab will be able to summarize the
legal protections and resources available to them to address religious discrimination in the
workplace.
Review of the Literature
This section provides the literature that examines the root causes of gaps in protecting
religious rights in the workplace for Muslim women who wear the hijab. The review begins with
general research on the religious and symbolic significance of the hijab. This is followed by an
overview of literature that highlights the pervasiveness of discrimination in the workplace toward
Muslim women who wear the hijab and the general Muslim population since the September 11th
terrorist attacks. The review examines the discussions by researchers on the possible causes of
workplace religious discrimination. This section includes current research on the impact that
discrimination has on Muslim women who wear the hijab. Following the general research
literature, the review turns to Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework,
specifically, the knowledge, motivation, organizational, and social influences on the
stakeholder’s ability to protect their religious rights in the workplace.
Definition of Hijab
The hijab is one of the most visible artifacts of religious expression for Muslim women
(Ali, Yamada, & Mahmood, 2015). The definition of the hijab, also known as hijaba in the
Arabic language, means to cover (Ghumman & Ryan, 2013) or conceal (Aslam, 2011). The term
hijab has several possible characterizations (Robinson, Franklin, & Hamilton, 2012). First, it
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 12

represents a woman covering her body from neck to ankle. Second, it refers to a head covering,
such as a headscarf that covers a woman’s head but not face. In the Western culture, however,
the term hijab has become synonymous with simply wearing a headscarf (Ghumman & Ryan,
2013). The hijab is deeply rooted in the religion of Islam and its Holy Book, the Quran, where it
is termed “khimar” (Aslam, 2011; Robinson et al., 2012; Tariq-Munir, 2014).
Religious Significance
The hijab is mentioned in two areas of the Quran, and is termed as “khimar”, which
translates to “veil” (Aslam, 2011). First, the Quran states, “And tell the believing women to
lower their gaze, and protect their private parts and not to show off their adornment except that,
which is apparent, and to draw their veils all over their bosoms and not to reveal their adornment
except to their husbands…” (Quran 24:31). In another instance, the Quran states, “O Prophet, tell
your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round
them… (Quran 33:59). However, the Quran also states that “there is no compulsion in religion”
(Quran 2:256), which suggests that it is the individual’s choice to observe the hijab even if it is a
religious requirement (Aslam, 2011). Additionally, the Quran describes the hijab not just as a
physical artifact, but also an expression of modesty of one’s behavior, thoughts, actions, and
speech (Aslam, 2011; Tariq-Munir, 2014). However, there is a debate as to whether it is even a
requirement for Muslim women to wear the hijab (Ghumman & Ryan, 2013).
Opponents of the Hijab
There is a view that suggests that the hijab is a cultural phenomenon as opposed to a
religious requirement (Ghumman & Ryan, 2013). Instead, for some, the hijab is emblematic of
social hierarchies and male domination that is merely a proliferation of mediocrity and servility
that seeks to oppress Muslim women (Read & Bartkowski, 2000; Ghumman & Ryan, 2013).
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 13

Others also argue that the Quran tangentially mentions the veil but does not explicitly mandate
that women should wear it (Paulose, 2015; Read & Bartkowski, 2000). Moreover, several have
posited that proponents of the hijab have greatly relied on the “hadith,” a collection of sayings or
teachings from the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, therefore suggesting that their source could be
unreliable (Read & Bartkowski, 2000). However, despite the debate whether the hijab is required
or not, several Muslim women choose to wear it out of their own will and do so for both
religious and symbolic purposes (Aslam, 2011).
Symbolic or Cultural Significance
Many Muslim women who wear the hijab do so out of their own will (Tariq-Munir,
2014) and view it as a religious symbol that helps define identity and exudes empowerment (Ali,
et al., 2015). To many Muslim women, the hijab is viewed as a symbol of freedom and
distinguished social identity, and it is worn by highly educated women (Kulenović, 2006).
According to one study, women state that wearing the headscarf has several purposes, such as
resisting sexual objectification, having greater control over their bodies, and preserving intimate
relationships (Droogsma, 2007). In another study, several women stated that they wear the
headscarf because of the identity it serves for Muslim women, and the friendships that are
formed with fellow hijab-wearing women (Read & Bartkowski, 2000). However, a qualitative
study conducted by Cole and Ahmadi (2003) found that the hijab is also worn due to cultural
pressures such as parental expectations and peer pressure and is viewed as a litmus test as to
whether a female is a good Muslim or not.
In summary, there is a debate as to whether the hijab is a required artifact in Islam, and
the consensus is that it is required, but not through compulsion. Although some have suggested
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 14

that the hijab is a culturally imposed artifact, it seems that most Muslim women who wear the
hijab do so out of their own free will and do so for both religious and symbolic purposes.
Pervasiveness of Workplace Religious Discrimination Toward Muslims: EEOC Data
Perceived and documented workplace discrimination toward Muslims, including Muslim
women who wear the hijab, has increased since the September 11th terrorist attacks. According
to the EEOC (2015), during the period between 1995 and 2001, the average number of all
religious-based employment complaints was 1,793, and an average of 265 those complaints, or
14.7%, were filed by Muslims. During that 6-year period, complaints filed by Muslims in the
workforce only increased 59%, which is a stark difference to 2002, the year following the
September 11th terrorist attacks.
In 2002, the average number of all religious-based employment complaints was 2,575,
which is an increase of 44% compared to the previous 6 years. Muslims accounted for 720 of
those complaints, or 28%, which is more than double than the previous 6 years (14.7%).
Furthermore, although the number of Muslims who filed complaints only increased 59% over the
previous 6-year period, that number increased 172% in a single year between 2001 and 2002.
Based on the EEOC’s data, religious workplace discrimination continued to increase years after
the September 11th terrorist attacks., including for Muslims in the workforce.
In 2015, which is the most recent year that the EEOC has provided specific data on
charges filed by Muslims, the total number of religious discrimination complaints filed was
3,504, and 711, or 20.3%, of those charges were by Muslims. This data illustrates workplace
discrimination toward Muslims is still 168% higher than the average number of complaints filed
between 1995 and 2001 (EEOC, 2016). Although the EEOC does not specifically provide what
percentage of the complaints filed by Muslims were filed by hijab-wearing women, there is
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 15

evidence that demonstrates the pervasiveness of discrimination in the workplace toward them
(Moore, 2007).
Specific Cases of Discrimination Toward Muslim Women Who Wear the Hijab
There are several prominent cases of workplace discrimination toward Muslim women
who wear the hijab (ACLU, 2008; Aslam, 2011; EEOC, 2006; Marcum & Perry, 2010). In 2001,
Alamo Rent-A-Car terminated Bilan Nur for refusing to remove her hijab even though she was
allowed to wear the hijab prior to the September 11th terror attacks (Aslam, 2011; Marcum &
Perry, 2010). In 2008, Abercrombie & Fitch refused to hire Halla Banafa because of her hijab;
the company’s store manager wrote “not Abercrombie look” on Banafa’s interview form when
meeting with her (Aslam, 2011; EEOC, 2010). In another case involving Abercrombie & Fitch,
the company refused to hire Samantha Elauf because her hijab violated the company’s look
policy, and she was later awarded $25,670 in damages (Aslam, 2011; ACLU, 2008; EEOC,
2015). In 2010, Disney, citing its look policy terminated Imane Boudlal because of her refusal to
wear a fedora-type had in lieu of her hijab (ACLU, 2012; Robinson et al., 2012). In 2012, the
Morningside House of Elliot City located in Elliot City, Maryland was required to pay $25,000
dollars for refusing to hire Khadijah Salim because she refused to remove her hijab, and the
company was also required to post a notice of its commitment to having a work environment free
of religious discrimination (EEOC, 2012). In 2016, Fair Oaks Dental Care located in Fairfax,
Virginia, citing its preference to maintain a religiously neutral work environment to not offend
patients, allegedly terminated Najaf Khan for her refusal to remove her hijab (Council on
American-Islamic Relations, 2016; Stone, 2016).
In summary, based on the EEOC’s data regarding workplace discrimination toward
Muslims, and the specific examples of discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 16

hijab, it is clear that the September 11th terrorist attacks not only have had a profound impact on
the public, but also on the Muslim community.
Protections Toward Religious Workplace Discrimination: Constitutional Rights
There are two amendments to the United States Constitution that Muslim women who
wear the hijab should have knowledge of: The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The First Amendment protects an individual’s freedom of establishing and practicing a religion
and prevents Congress from implementing a law that establishes a specific religion (U.S. Const.
amend. I.). The Fourteenth Amendment prevents any state from denying equal protection of the
laws for all citizens of the United States (U.S. Const. amend XIV). According to the ACLU
(2008),
The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution bar federal and state
governments from making laws or rules that specifically prohibit women from practicing
hijab. In some circumstances, however, the Constitution allows neutral rules that apply to
everyone, such as a rule barring all head coverings, whether religious or not. (p. 1)
Statutes
Two statutes protect toward religious discrimination: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII) and the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Title VII
prohibits employers from discriminating toward individuals based on religion, color, race, and
sex in all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, and promotions. Title VII also requires
employers to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee’s religious needs, so long as the
accommodation does not result in undue hardship to the employer. Title VII is only enforceable
with all private businesses or state and local governments that have 15 or more employees who
had been employed for at least 20 calendar weeks. However, if the employer is a federal
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 17

government agency, then there is no threshold with regards to the number of individuals
employed.
The RFRA prevents the government from creating a burden on an individual’s right to
exercise religion. According to the ACLU (2008),
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides additional protection at the federal level
by barring the federal government and its officials from restricting women’s ability to
practice hijab (either specifically or through generally applicable rules), unless the
government can demonstrate that its action was the “least restrictive means” for
achieving a “compelling governmental interest” (p. 1).
In summary, the construct that both government and citizens must respect the basic rights
of individuals to observe and express religious beliefs is firmly embedded within the
Constitution of the United States and several federal statutes.
History of Title VII and the EEOC
Inception
In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law and would prohibit
employers from discriminating toward individuals based on religion, color, race, and sex in all
aspects of employment. As part of Title VII, the EEOC was created and would be comprised of
five bipartisan members charged with eliminating unlawful employment discrimination but
without the authority to enforce organizations’ compliance with Title VII (EEOC, 2016). Title
VII would later be amended to expand the authority of the EEOC (EEOC, 2016).
As an amendment to Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (EEOC,
n.d.) was enacted and would empower the EEOC with litigation authority to hold federal, state,
and local governments accountable to Title VII and would protect individuals employed by
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 18

educational institutions (EEOC, 2016). However, over the past 50 years, the EEOC’s mission has
expanded to also enforce the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination and Employment
Act of 1967, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of
1978, Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Genetic
Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (EEOC, 2016).
Gaps in Title VII
The increase in workplace discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the hijab can
be attributed to several issues relating to Title VII (Aslam, 2011; Benson, 2014). According to
Benson (2014), there are three issues regarding Title VII and its interpretation: the courts’ view
that the hijab is a mere symbol of religion rather than a fundamental component of religious
practice, the statute only protects an employee from harassment by the employer but not
harassment by the employer’s customers or clients, and that the burden of proof falls on the
employee to prove that the employer had discriminatory intent. Furthermore, when comparing
workplace discrimination involving race versus workplace discrimination involving religion, the
courts carry the view that race is based on immutable characteristics, whereas religion is based
on mutable characteristics, thus making race-based discrimination easier to determine (Benson,
2014). Finally, the language involving Title VII is perceived to be ambiguous by employers,
specifically around what constitutes observance of religion, religious accommodation, and undue
hardship (Ghumman et al., 2013).
In summary, allowing the disposition of Title VII to remain unreformed could result in a
disproportionate level of workplace harassment and discrimination toward Muslim women who
wear the hijab (Benson, 2014) and increased litigation between employers and religious
advocacy groups (Robinson et al., 2012).
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 19

Knowledge, Motivation Organizational, and Social Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a researched-based framework that identifies the root
causes of performance gaps between an organization’s current and desired state. The framework
consists of a step-by-step gap analysis that identifies business and individual performance goals,
determines and analyzes the causes of performance gaps, and identifies and implements solutions
to eliminating performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Clark and Estes, the three
salient causes of performance gaps are knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
barriers. The knowledge and skills category is divided into four subcategories: factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002). The motivation category is divided into three items: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008), and can be influenced by people’s self-
efficacy, attributions and control beliefs, values, and goals (Rueda, 2011). Finally, organizational
barriers consist of several items, including work processes, material resources, value chains and
value streams, and organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The components of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework are addressed in
terms of the knowledge, motivation, social, and organizational needs of Muslim women who
wear the hijab towards the goal of their being able to summarize the legal protections and
resources available to them to address religious discrimination in the workplace. The first section
discusses the assumed knowledge and skills influences on attainment of the goal. The second
section considers the assumed motivation factors that influence attainment of the stakeholder
goal. Finally, the third section explores the achievement of the stakeholder goal vis-à-vis
assumed organizational and social influences.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 20

Knowledge
Due to the increasing number of Muslim women who wear the hijab in America and the
pervasiveness of discrimination toward them in the workplace, it is imperative that they have
knowledge of the legal protections that address religious discrimination in the workforce. As
suggested by Mujtaba and Cavico (2012), educating the workforce is a critical factor in solving
religious problems in the workplace. As such, the literature review in this section focuses on the
knowledge and motivation influences that will assist Muslim women who wear the hijab in
addressing religious discrimination in the workplace.
Knowledge influences. Knowledge can be divided into four categories: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge
is the knowledge of facts, details, or terminology required to accomplish a goal. Conceptual
knowledge is the knowledge of concepts, models, or theories of a particular domain. Procedural
knowledge is the knowledge of how to accomplish a goal. Lastly, metacognitive knowledge is an
individual’s self-knowledge of why he or she chooses a strategy to accomplish a goal.
Although all four knowledge categories are important to hijab-wearing women protecting
their religious rights in the workplace, this study focuses on factual knowledge and procedural
knowledge. Factual knowledge is indicative of knowing the constitutional rights, statutory rights,
and resources (e.g., the EEOC) that protect religious rights in the workplace. Procedural
knowledge pertains to the steps are to file a religious-based discrimination complaint with an
employer’s human resource department or with the EEOC.
Although there have not been specific studies relating to employees’ knowledge with
regards to religious workplace procedures or laws, there have been studies that are germane to
this topic. Several studies have demonstrated that lack of employees’ knowledge vis-à-vis other
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 21

employment laws. In one study, 2400 participants were asked to confirm whether a series of
actions by employers were legal or illegal. In that study, nearly 74% of the participants
incorrectly identified legal actions by employers as illegal, roughly 78% were able to identify
which actions were unlawful, and approximately 83% incorrectly answered that it was illegal to
terminate an employee for no reason as provided by the employment-at-will rule (Freeman &
Rogers, as cited by Eliasoph, 2008). In a similar study, approximately 90% of the participants
who were surveyed inaccurately stated that it was unlawful for an employer to terminate an
employee due to personal dislike, and over 80% inaccurately stated that an employer could not
terminate employees and replace them with individuals who would do the work for less money
(Kim, as cited by Estlund, 2002).
Motivation
This section focuses on the motivation-related influences that are pertinent for hijab-
wearing women to address religious discrimination in the workplace. However, it is first
important to explain the different definitions of motivation, why motivation is important, and
then to provide a brief overview of the two salient motivational constructs that are germane to
Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace.
Numerous definitions of motivation have been offered by scholars and practitioners.
According to Mayer (2011), “motivation is an internal state that initiates and maintains goal
directed behavior,” and that motivation is personal, activating, energizing, and directed (p. 39).
Clark and Estes (2008) defines motivation as something that “gets us going, keeps us moving,
and tells us how much effort to spend on a task” and noted that the components of motivation are
active choice, persistence, mental effort (p.80). Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece (as cited by Rueda,
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 22

2011) defined motivation as “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and
sustained,” and that motivation is influenced by internal and external factors (p. 38).
One of those external factors could be stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Steele
and Aronson (1995) defined stereotype threat theory as “being at risk of confirming, as self-
characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group” (p. 797). Essentially, stereotype threat is
an individual’s tendency to inadvertently validate a stereotype of a group they are associated
with while attempting to accomplish a goal (Steele & Aronson, 1995). When performing a task,
individuals associated with stigmatized groups exhibit a fear of conforming to the negative
stereotypes related to their groups, thus inadvertently causing them not to perform well on those
tasks (Ghumman & Jackson, 2010). However, the individual experiencing group-related
stereotyping does not need to believe that a stereotype is true; rather, the mere threat that a
stereotype exists can cause the individual to validate that stereotype (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
Furthermore, an individual’s attempt at disproving a stereotype when attempting to accomplish a
task or goal could lead to self-consciousness, over cautiousness, and frustration, which ultimately
undermines an individual’s ability to succeed (Davis & Silver, 2003; Steele & Aronson, 1995).
As suggested by Benson (2014), “effects of stereotype threat are additionally exacerbated when
members of the stigmatized group are significantly outnumbered by non-members, as their social
identity as a stigmatized individual becomes readily appreciable and more salient” (p. 18), which
can be seen in hijab-wearing women, women, and blacks.
A study conducted by Pasha-Zaidi, Masson, and Pennington (2014) assessed how
wearing the hijab impacted the employability of Muslim women and hypothesized that religious
attire activates stereotype threat, specifically that Muslim women who wear the hijab will be
viewed less favorably for employment. In this study, participants were asked to view two
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 23

photographs of the same woman with and without the hijab and were asked the likelihood of the
woman obtaining a position as a doctor, laundry worker, graphic designer, or personal household
cook. The study found that the participants in the United States, both hijab-wearing and non-
hijab-wearing, rated non-hijab-wearing women higher for employability. Outside of the
workforce, the impact of stereotype threat has been seen on minorities when test taking.
Several studies conducted by Steele and Aronson (1995) found that stereotype threat
caused Black participants to perform worse than Whites when taking a test that was based on
ability; however, they improved significantly when the test was presented as not being based on
ability. These studies also demonstrated that the mere requirement of identifying their race on the
test impaired the Black participants’ performance, even though the test was not based on
intellectual ability. A similar phenomenon has been seen involving women and math tests.
The impact of stereotype threat on women has also been addressed in several studies
conducted by Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999). These studies found that women participants
underperformed on difficult math tests compared to male participants when the tests were
described as having gender differences. However, when these tests were not described as having
gender differences, women participants performed as well as the male participants. Based on the
studies involving hijab-wearing women, women, and African Americans, it is reasonable to
assume that stereotype threat could have an impact on active choice, persistence, and mental
effort (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Active choice is actively making a choice to pursue a goal, persistence is persevering
toward that goal despite distractions, and mental effort is applying the required amount of mental
energy to accomplish that goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that
individuals who are pessimistic about their chances of being effective or successful could impact
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 24

their active choice, persistence, or mental effort. Therefore, the despondency that stereotype
threat engenders could cause Muslim women who wear the hijab to believe that they cannot be
successful no matter what they do, thus discouraging them actively pursuing a goal, persisting
through stereotypes, or investing enough mental effort. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume
that there could be an impact on two motivational influences: self-efficacy and attribution.
Motivation influences. The two motivational influences that are germane to Muslim
women who wear the hijab in the workplace are self-efficacy and attribution. Self-efficacy is an
individual’s belief that he or she is capable of accomplishing a goal (Bandura, 1991; Pajares,
2006), and attribution is what the individual believes is the cause of success or failure is in a
given situation (Rueda, 2011; Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Self-efficacy theory. The construct of self-efficacy postulates that an individual’s
motivation to accomplish a task or goal is influenced by the belief in their ability to produce the
desired outcome (Bandura, 1991; Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy is also a factor in determining the
amount of effort exerted to accomplish a goal and the willingness to endure through the
challenges associated with achieving a goal (Bandura, 1991). Individuals who have high self-
efficacy are more likely to ascribe their failure to their lack of effort, whereas people with low
self-efficacy will attribute their failure to lack of ability (Bandura, 1991). Moreover, high self-
efficacious individuals experience joy or happiness when confronted with a difficult task;
conversely, low self-efficacious individuals exhibit despondent behaviors. According to Pajares
(2006), an individual’s self-efficacy can also be impacted by feedback received during social
interactions that occur within different cultural settings like work or school (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). As such, religious discrimination in the workplace could be a social
interaction that impacts the self-efficacy of Muslim women who wear the hijab.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 25

Self-efficacy and the hijab. Ghumman and Jackson (2010) found that hijab-wearing
women had lower expectations for their job prospects than non-hijab-wearing women, regardless
of occupation. Research also indicates that Muslim women who wear the hijab are
uncomfortable with wearing the headscarf in the workplace due to the fear of not being hired,
being rejected by their colleagues, or facing other types of consequences (Reeves, McKinney, &
Azam, 2012). In another study that surveyed 219 Muslim women, 30% of the Muslim women
who wore the hijab stated that they were concerned about applying for jobs, 22% stated that they
were denied employment, and 63% were aware of times that other hijab-wearing women were
denied employment (Ghumman & Jackson, 2010; University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2010). As
such, it is reasonable to assume an individual’s level of self-efficacy could be attributed to both
internal and external forces (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
Attribution Theory. Rueda (2011) defined attributions as the “belief one has about the
reasons for success or failure at a task or activity as well as the degree of control they have in
affecting that outcome” (p. 41). Within attribution theory is the construct that individuals attempt
to analyze and interpret social environments such as workplace settings (Rueda, 2011) with the
objective of understanding the cause of certain events like hiring decisions (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Essentially, individuals attempt to ascertain the reasoning behind their failure
or success in a given situation (Rueda, 2011). The individual then attributes the success or failure
to three causal dimensions: stability, locus, and controllability. Stability refers to whether the
cause of an event is temporary or permanent, locus is whether the cause is attributed to internal
or external forces, and controllability is whether the individual has control of the attributions
(Rueda, 2011). Therefore, attribution could be impacted by workplace discrimination toward
Muslim women who wear the hijab (Ghumman & Ryan, 2013; Reeves et al., 2012).
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 26

Attribution and the hijab. According to Ghumman and Ryan (2013), when comparing
hijab-wearing women vis-à-vis non-hijab-wearing women, there is a negative correlation
between wearing the hijab and receiving permission to complete a job application, receiving a
job call-back, and the applicant’s expectation of receiving a job offer. King and Ahmad (2010)
found that women in Muslim attire who do not attempt to counteract the stereotypes of Muslims
are more likely to have a challenge finding a job and have experienced more negative
interactions when wearing Muslim attire than when they did not. Furthermore, women that wear
the hijab are still likely to face higher rejection rates when applying for jobs, despite their level
of education (Unkelbach, Schneider, Gode, & Senft, 2010).
Organizational and Social Influences
This section examines the possible organizational barriers or influences (Clark & Estes,
2008) that affect a hijab-wearing women’s ability to protect their religious rights in the
workplace. However, this study did not evaluate a specific stakeholder vis-à-vis a single
organization; rather, it evaluated a stakeholder group (the hijab-wearing women) who are
employed, were previously employed, or were seeking employment in the United States.
Therefore, there were several organizations, or employers, evaluated. Moreover, there were
several social factors, influences or barriers that needed to be considered, such as the political,
legal, and cultural environments in which the hijab-wearing women and employers operate in.
As such, for the purpose of this section of the literature review, both the organizational barriers
and social barriers need to be discussed as interrelated constructs that impact hijab-wearing
women in the workplace.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 27

Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that an organization’s culture, inadequate resources,
and flawed policies and procedures are barriers to employees accomplishing their goals. The
United States Department of Agriculture (n.d.) defined social barriers as
Differences (inequalities), in gender, ethnicity, race, religion, health or socioeconomic
status, between individuals or groups that prevent them from achieving or accomplishing
their goals, or deny their opportunity to access resources and to advance their interests
(para. 1).
The definitions mentioned above suggest that culture, whether in an organization or society,
could serve as a barrier or influence to achieving an individual’s goals.
Schein (2004) defined culture as “shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group
as it solved its problems…that has worked well enough to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 18). Culture, in
Schein’s (2004) view, is a powerful abstraction that consists of three levels: artifacts (i.e.,
language, clothing, and environment), espoused beliefs and values (i.e., philosophical views or
ideologies), and basic underlying assumptions (i.e., unconscious beliefs or values). According to
Clark and Estes (2008), culture is a multi-dimensional and dynamic construct that is both
conscious and unconscious and serves as a conduit for describing the values, goals, beliefs, and
processes learned by people over time, and there are three types of culture: organizational or
environmental culture, group culture, and individual culture. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001),
however, bifurcated culture into two categories: cultural models and cultural settings.
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), cultural models are “shared mental
schema or normative understanding of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47). Cultural
models exist within organizations, societies, or individuals (Rueda, 2011) and serve as an
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 28

invisible toolkit on how to perceive or approach situations (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural models are taken-for-granted and are only noticed when an individual is introduced to
an organization or society that carries dissimilar models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Although cultural models are interconnected to cultural settings, there are some key differences.
Cultural settings are where “people come together to carry out a joint activity that
accomplishes something they value” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 48). Cultural settings,
therefore, are visible and are the social contexts in which cultural models are created and acted
out, such as workplace or classroom settings (Rueda, 2011). Both cultural models and cultural
settings can be seen as influences or barriers to accomplishing a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
There are two cultural models and one cultural setting that serve as influencers to a hijab-
wearing women’s ability to protect toward religious workplace discrimination. The two cultural
models are the American cultural model and the hijab cultural model, and the specific cultural
setting is the workplace.
The American cultural model espouses the need for a separation of church and state
(Inglehart & Norris, 2002). Values such as equality, liberty, and individualism are at the core of
the American culture (Williams & Vashi, 2007). The hijab, then, can be seen as incongruent with
the American culture because it is viewed as a symbol of inequality and oppression of Muslim
women (Droogsma, 2007) and as an indicator of being inferior to men (Cole & Ahmadi, 2003).
Therefore, the logic of Muslim American citizens wearing the hijab seems nonsensical to a
population that holds a Christian majority and reads reports of Muslim women being treated
unfairly in several Muslim countries (Williams & Vashi, 2007). However, the above view is not
consistent with the hijab cultural model.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 29

Despite the misperception that Muslim women are forced to wear the hijab, most state
that they wear hijab out of their own will (Tariq-Munir, 2014). The common belief is that hijab
represents gender oppression (Droogsma, 2007) and is worn by poor, uneducated women (Ali et
al., 2015). However, the hijab cultural model espouses the belief that the hijab represents
empowerment (Ali, et al., 2015). To hijab-wearing women, the hijab not only represents their
commitment to Islam (Read & Bartkowski, 2000) but also symbolizes the freedom to choose
their own identity Kulenović, 2006). Williams and Vashi (2007) suggested that wearing the hijab
allows women to create a cultural space for themselves as part of their American culture and
allows them to negotiate their identities as Muslims and Americans to be a part of both worlds.
However, it has also been suggested that Muslim women wear the hijab as a form of resistance to
the Western’s disposition toward their religion and culture (Hamadan, as cited in Ali et al.,
2015). As such, when juxtaposing the American cultural model with the hijab cultural model, a
natural dissonance emerges that leaves hijab-wearing women attempting to figure out what the
appropriate practices are in certain situations or settings, for example in the workplace (Williams
& Vashi, 2007).
Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, the workplace cultural setting has been a
major influence on hijab-wearing women’s ability to protect toward workplace religious
discrimination (ACLU, 2008). Ghumman et al. (2013) postulated that there are several
contributors that affect Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace. Specifically, those
contributors are legal ambiguities for employers with regards to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the increased religious diversity in the workforce, the increase of religious expression
by employees, and the unique nature of religion compared to other legally protected categories.
The increase in religious workplace complaints suggests the need for organizations to evaluate
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 30

diversity climate in their organization, address areas that do not support diversity, and generate a
greater awareness of diversity to create a climate of inclusion (Reeves et al., 2012). Moreover,
several cases indicate that organizations’ human resources (HR) departments need to better
understand religious discrimination, more effectively communicate policies and procedures
pertaining to religious rights and accommodations and ensure that policies and procedures are
consistent for all employees (Ghumman, et al., 2013).
Table 1
Assumed Influences
Stakeholder/Global Goal
All Muslim women who wear the hijab will be able to summarize the legal protections and
resources available to them to address religious discrimination in the workplace.
Knowledge Influence Motivational Influence Organizational/Social Influence
Muslim women who wear
the hijab need to know the
Constitutional rights that
protect against religious
discrimination in the
workplace. (Factual)
Self-Efficacy

Muslim women who wear
the hijab need to believe
that they have the ability to
protect against religious
discrimination in the
workplace.
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The American cultural model

The hijab can be seen as
incongruent with the American
culture because it is viewed as a
symbol of inequality and
oppression of Muslim women.
Muslim women who wear
the hijab need to know the
statutes that protect
against religious
discrimination in the
workplace. (Factual)

Attribution

Muslim women who wear
the hijab believe that their
success or failure in the
workplace can be attributed
to the hijab.

Cultural Model Influence 2:
The hijab Cultural Model

The incongruence between the
American cultural model impacts
the Muslim women who wear the
hijab’ ability to protect their
religious rights in the workplace
because of fear and distrust.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 31

Table 1, continued
Stakeholder/Global Goal
All Muslim women who wear the hijab will be able to summarize the legal protections and
resources available to them to address religious discrimination in the workplace.
Knowledge Influence Motivational Influence Organizational/Social Influence
Muslim women who wear
the hijab need to know the
Resources that are
available to address
religious discrimination in
the workplace. (Factual)
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The Workplace Cultural Setting

The general disposition of the
culture that exists within
organizations are not conducive to
diversity and inclusion, and do not
create an environment that
encourages Muslim women who
wear the hijab to speak up.
Muslim women who wear
the hijab need to know
how to file a religious
workplace discrimination
complaint to the EEOC.
(Procedural)

Interactive Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), the conceptual framework, also called the theoretical
framework, is a road map that illustrates the possible relationship between concepts, theories, or
variables of a study. As such, although each of the potential influencers are being presented as
independent of each other, they are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, an overview regarding the
interrelatedness of the potential influencers as they relate to Muslim women who wear the hijab
should be presented.
Utilizing literature from social cognitive theory, motivational theory, and sociocultural
theory, I postulate that there are four salient influencers or barriers to hijab-wearing women
addressing religious discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, those influencers or barriers
are knowledge, motivation, organizational, and social influences (Clark & Estes, 2008; United
States Department of Agriculture, n.d.). As such, for Muslim women who wear the hijab to
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 32

accomplish their goal, they must overcome the knowledge, motivation, organizational, and social
factors.

Figure 1. Presentation of conceptual framework.
The figure above illustrates the stakeholder’s (hijab-wearing women) goal of addressing
religious discrimination in the workplace. However, to accomplish their goal, they must pass
through both internal (knowledge and motivation) and external (organizational) barriers. The
three red circles in the center of the figure that depict the barriers are presented in the form of a
Venn diagram to demonstrate their interrelatedness. In other words, although the barriers are
presented as independent factors, there is a tangential relationship with one another, and they do
not operate in isolation. Moreover, the diagram also depicts the social influence and
interconnectedness between the hijab cultural model and the stakeholder circle (the Muslim
women who wear the hijab), and the social influence and interconnectedness between the
American cultural model and the organizational circle (workplace cultural setting). Lastly, the
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 33

diagram illustrates the perceived incongruence between the hijab cultural model and the
American cultural model, which influences the relationship between the Muslim women who
wear the hijab and their workplace settings.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 34

DATA COLLECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
This project utilized a quantitative methods design for data gathering and analysis.
Creswell (2014) defined quantitative research as “an approach for testing objective theories by
examining relationships among variables” (p. 4), and it is indicative of survey designs and
experimental designs. Survey designs extrapolate numeric trends based on the population
studied, whereas experimental designs test the efficacy of a treatment on an outcome (Creswell,
2014). Therefore, the salient components of quantitative research are described as data in the
form of numbers, and statistical techniques used to analyze data, which are key differentiators
from its counterpart, qualitative research (Braun and Clark, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As such, a survey was the preferred method for this study because attitudes and opinions of
Muslim women who wear the hijab were being collected. Specifically, the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational and social influences that impact their ability to protect their
religious rights in the workplace. Moreover, based on the results of the survey, the goal was to
draw inferences vis-à-vis all Muslim women who wear the hijab in the United States.
Surveys
To maintain content validity of the survey, the survey items were linked to the conceptual
framework and research questions of this project (Salkind, 2017). The online survey contained
40 questions: 11 were demographical; 16 were Likert-type questions based on the knowledge,
motivational, organizational and social influences; 3 were on instances of reported
discrimination; 9 were open-ended; and 1 was a dichotomous question on whether the participant
would be willing to be interviewed.
The demographical questions included age, marital status, racial or ethnic heritage,
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 35

employment status, and whether the participant wore the hijab. Four of the demographical
questions were a part of the study’s sampling criteria; specifically, whether participants were 18
years of age or older, whether they wore the hijab, and whether they were employed, were
previously employed, or were seeking employment. The Likert-type questions consisted of three
knowledge questions, six motivation questions, and seven organizational and social questions.
Furthermore, the response options to the Likert-type questions were strongly agree, agree,
disagree, strongly disagree, or decline to answer. The open-ended questions were all optional and
existed in three areas: after four of the Likert-type questions, after all three of the reported
discrimination questions, and at the end survey in which participants were asked to share
anything else that they felt was necessary. Appendix A provides the complete list of survey
questions.
A request to participate in the survey was sent to various Muslim-based organizations,
social media groups, and student groups (Appendix B). The survey was active from October 22,
2017 until November 30, 2017. There were 443 survey respondents and 336 of those respondents
met the eligibility criteria of the study. The 107 participants who were excluded were not 18
years of age or older (13 participants); did not wear the hijab (18 participants); not currently
employed, previously employed, or seeking employment (26 participants); or did not complete
more than 91% of the survey (50 participants).
Data Analysis
Data from completed surveys were cleaned prior to the commencement of statistical
analysis. Specifically, predetermined eligibility criteria for this project were applied, and
pairwise deletion was selected as the most appropriate approach for handling missing data. Most
importantly, listwise deletion would lead to significant attrition of more than half of the original
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 36

sample size. Likert items with “decline to answer” selected were treated as missing for the
purpose of analysis. To enable quantitative analysis of the data, Likert items were scored. The
scores ranged from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 4 for “strongly agree.” Negatively worded
questions were reverse-coded from 1 for “strongly agree” to 4 for “strongly disagree.”
Demographic variables such as ethnicity, state, and marital status were analyzed as nominal
variables. States were categorized into regions, and age was analyzed as a categorical variable.
Constructs were developed by computing mean scores over the corresponding variables. Scale
reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha with values above 0.70 considered acceptable
(Salkind, 2017).
Frequencies and percentages associated with each survey item were calculated, and
responses were reported. Continuous variables were compared among multiple groups using the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure (Salkind, 2017). Pairwise correlations were evaluated
by estimating Pearson’s correlation coefficient (Salkind, 2017). Linear regression models were
created to explore the relationship between the constructs (factual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, self-efficacy, attribution, cultural setting, and cultural model) and participants’
demographic characteristics (Salkind, 2017). Variables were included in the model based on the
researcher’s prior research and literature. The constructs were each modeled as the dependent
variable, while predictors included age (categorical), ethnicity, marital status, US region, whether
the participant reported discrimination to their employer, whether the participant reported
discrimination to an outside agency (e.g., ACLU), and whether the participant filed a workplace
religious discrimination lawsuit. Hypothesis testing was considered statistically significant at
p < 0.05 (Salkind, 2017). All statistical analyses were performed in Stata SE version 15
(StataCorp, College Station, TX). Tables and charts were designed in Microsoft Excel.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 37

FINDINGS
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the prevalence of workplace religious
discrimination in the United States toward Muslim women who wear the hijab and whether they
know the legal protections and resources available to them to address the discrimination.
Presented in this section is data collected regarding the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational and social barriers that impact the ability of hijab-wearing women to protect their
religious rights in the workplace. Most respondents were between the ages of 25 and 40 (49.4%),
married (50.6%) Middle Eastern or Arab American (39.3%), or resided in the Mid-Atlantic
region (36.6%). A more comprehensive demographics table can be found in Appendix C.
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Characteristics n % N = 336
Age

18-24 86 25.6%
25-40 166 49.4%
>40 84 25.0%
Ethnicity
Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American 36 10.7%
East Asian or Asian American 18 5.4%
Latino or Hispanic American 9 2.7%
Middle Eastern or Arab American 132 39.3%
Native American or Alaskan Native 3 0.9%
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American 42 12.5%
South Asian or Indian American 76 22.6%
Other (please specify) 16 4.8%
Declined to answer 4 1.2%

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 38

Table 2, continued
Characteristics n % N = 336
Marital Status

Single 130 38.7%
Married 170 50.6%
Separated 1 0.3%
Widowed 3 0.9%
Divorced 28 8.3%
Declined to answer 4 1.2%
US Region

Southeast 29 8.6%
Southwest 29 8.6%
Pacific west 71 21.1%
Mountain west 11 3.3%
Midwest 43 12.8%
Northeast 28 8.3%
Mid-Atlantic 123 36.6%
Other 2 0.6%

Knowledge
This study evaluated two categories of the knowledge influence: factual and procedural.
Factual knowledge is the knowledge of constitutional and statutory rights as well as the resources
available to address religious discrimination in the workplace. Procedural knowledge is the
knowledge of how to file a religious workplace complaint with the EEOC.
Factual knowledge. The data suggested that participants had a good factual
understanding of their rights and resources. As illustrated in Table 3, most participants either
strongly agreed or agreed (89.6%) to knowing their constitutional and statutory rights, and the
resources available to address religious discrimination in the workplace (68.1%).

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 39

Table 3
Distribution of Participant Responses to Factual Knowledge Items
Survey Item Response n % N = 336

Q.15 Know my constitutional and
statutory rights
Strongly Disagree 6 1.8%

Disagree 28 8.3%

Agree 118 35.1%

Strongly Agree 183 54.5%

Declined to answer 1 0.3%

Q.16 Know the resources that are
available
Strongly Disagree 18 5.4%

Disagree 87 25.9%

Agree 115 34.2%

Strongly Agree 114 33.9%

Declined to answer 2 0.6%

The reliability of the factual knowledge scale was below the acceptable threshold (α =
0.57). Overall, respondents had high scores on the factual knowledge scale (M 3.20, SD 0.69).
The mean score for the factual knowledge scale also varied by age; however, scores did not vary
by ethnicity or region.

2.85
2.9
2.95
3
3.05
3.1
3.15
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
18-24 years 25-40 years >40 years
Mean Score
Age Category
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 40

Figure 2. Distribution of mean scores on factual knowledge scale by age category.
As illustrated in Appendix D, there was a positive correlation between factual knowledge
and age (r = 0.15, p < 0.01), and between factual knowledge and having a marital status of
divorced, widowed, or other (r = 0.17, p < 0.01). However, there was a negative correlation
between factual knowledge and being single (r = -0.15, p < 0.01), and factual knowledge and
residing in the Mountain-West region (r = -0.12, p < 0.05). The linear regression analysis
(Appendix E) suggested that age was a significant predictor of factual knowledge scores.
Participants who were between the ages of 25 and 40 scored higher on average than participants
who were between the ages of 18 and 24 (β = 0.22, p = 0.04). Moreover, participants who were
older than 40 years of age also scored higher on average than participants who were between 18
and 24 years of age (β = 0.30, p = 0.02).
Procedural knowledge. The data suggested that participants did not have a good
procedural understanding of how to file an EEOC complaint. Sixty-eight percent of the
participants either strongly disagreed or disagreed to knowing the process of filing an EEOC
complaint.
Table 4
Distribution of Participant Responses to Procedural Knowledge Items
Survey Item Response n % N = 336

Q.17 Know the process of filing an EEOC
complaint
Strongly
Disagree
59 17.6%

Disagree 171 50.9%

Agree 66 19.6%

Strongly
Agree
37 11.0%

Declined
to answer
3 0.9%

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 41

Overall, respondents had low scores on the procedural knowledge scale (M 2.20, SD 0.9).
The mean score for procedural knowledge also varied by age; however, scores did not vary by
ethnicity or region.

Figure 3. Distribution of mean scores on procedural knowledge scale by age category.
There were positive correlations between procedural knowledge and age (r = 0.34, p <
0.001), between procedural knowledge and having a marital status of married (r = 0.12, p <
0.05), between procedural knowledge and having a marital status of divorced, widowed, or other
(r = 0.17, p < 0.01) and between procedural knowledge and having Native American or Alaskan
ethnicity (r = 0.12, p < 0.05). However, there was a negative correlation between procedural
knowledge and having a marital status of single (r = -0.24, p < 0.001). The linear regression
analysis (Appendix F) suggested that age was a significant predictor of procedural knowledge
scores. Participants who were older than 40 years of age scored higher on average than
participants who were between 18 and 24 years of age (β = 0.64, p < 0.001).

2.85
2.9
2.95
3
3.05
3.1
3.15
3.2
3.25
3.3
3.35
18-24 years 25-40 years >40 years
Mean Score
Age Category
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 42

Motivation
The two categories of the motivation influence were self-efficacy and attribution. Self-
efficacy refers to a participant’s belief that she is confident in her ability to protect her religious
rights in the workplace. Attribution is a participant’s belief that her success or failure in the
workplace (e.g., obtaining a job) is attributed to wearing of the hijab.
Self-efficacy. The data presented mixed results pertaining to self-efficacy. Although most
participants strongly agreed or agreed (88.7%) to being confident in their ability to protect their
religious rights in the workplace, 53% strongly agreed or agreed to being less confident about
obtaining a job when wearing the hijab. Moreover, most participants strongly agreed or agreed
(59.6%) that the possibility of a stereotype toward Muslim women who wear the hijab has an
impact on their confidence.
Table 5
Distribution of Participant Responses to Self-Efficacy Items
Survey Item Response n % N = 336

Q.14 Confident in ability to protect my
religious rights
Strongly Disagree 11 3.3%

Disagree 24 7.1%

Agree 136 40.5%

Strongly Agree 162 48.2%

Declined to answer 3 0.9%

Q.18 Stereotype of hijab affects my
confidence
Strongly Agree 57 17.0%

Agree 143 42.6%

Disagree 85 25.3%

Strongly Disagree 47 14.0%

Declined to answer 4 1.2%

Q.30 Less confident of getting job because
of hijab
Strongly Agree 45 13.4%

Agree 135 40.2%

Disagree 100 29.8%

Strongly Disagree 52 15.5%

Declined to answer 4 1.2%
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 43

The reliability of the self-efficacy scale was below the acceptable threshold (α = 0.55).
Overall, participants had high scores on the self-efficacy scale (M 2.7, SD 0.60). The mean score
for the self-efficacy scale did not vary by age, ethnicity, or region.
There were positive correlations between self-efficacy and age (r = 0.17, p < 0.01),
between self-efficacy and being Native American or Alaskan (r = 0.11, p < 0.05), and between
self-efficacy and residing in the Mid-Atlantic region (r = 0.13, p < 0.05). The linear regression
analysis (Appendix G) suggested that age was a significant predictor of self-efficacy scores.
Participants who were between the ages of 25 and 40 scored higher on average than participants
who were between the ages of 18 and 24 (β = 0.20, p = 0.04). Furthermore, participants who
were older than 40 years of age also scored higher on average than participants who were
between 18 and 24 years of age (β = 0.32, p = 0.01). Lastly, participants who indicated that they
have reported discrimination to a third-party agency had a lower self-efficacy score on average
(β = -0.49, p <0.001).
Attribution. The data suggested that attribution could be a barrier for Muslim women
who wear the hijab in the workplace. Fifty-three percent of the participants strongly agreed or
agreed that the hijab could be attributed to an instance where they did not obtain a job, and
66.9% strongly agreed or agreed that there was a negative stereotype of women who wear the
hijab in the workplace. However, 72% of the participants either strongly disagreed or disagreed
that the hijab was attributed to an instance that they were terminated.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 44

Table 6
Distribution of participant responses to Attribution items
Survey Item Response n % N = 336

Q.26 Hijab attributed to job
termination
Strongly Agree 17 5.1%

Agree 41 12.2%

Disagree 119 35.4%

Strongly Disagree 123 36.6%

Declined to answer 36 10.7%

Q.28 Hijab attributed to no job offer Strongly Agree 69 20.5%

Agree 111 33.0%

Disagree 100 29.8%

Strongly Disagree 42 12.5%

Declined to answer 14 4.2%

Q.32 Negative stereotype toward hijab Strongly Agree 74 22.0%

Agree 151 44.9%

Disagree 77 22.9%

Strongly Disagree 21 6.3%

Declined to answer 13

3.9%

The reliability of the attribution scale was at the acceptable threshold (α = 0.70). Overall,
respondents had moderate-to-high scores on the attribution scale (M 2.5, SD 0.7). The mean
score for the attribution scale also varied by ethnicity; however, scores did not vary by age.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 45

Figure 4. Distribution of mean scores on attribution scale by ethnic category.
There were positive correlations between attribution and being Latino or Hispanic
American (r = 0.14, p < 0.05) as well as between attribution and being South Asian or Indian
American (r = 0.19, p < 0.01). However, there was a negative correlation between attribution and
being Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American (r = -0.15, p < 0.05). The linear regression
analysis (Appendix H) suggested that age was a significant predictor of attribution scores.
Participants who were between the ages of 25 and 40 scored higher on average than participants
who were between the ages of 18 and 24 (β = 0.31, p = 0.01). Furthermore, participants who
were older than 40 years of age also scored higher on average than participants who were
between 18 and 24 years of age (β = 0.34, p = 0.01). Lastly, participants who indicated that they
have reported discrimination to a third-party agency had a lower attribution score on average (β
= -0.56, p < 0.001).

2.7
2.2
2.3
2.5
3.1
2.5
1.9
2.5
2.8
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Declined to answer
Other
Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American
East Asian or Asian American
Latino or Hispanic American
Middle Eastern or Arab American
Native American or Alaskan Native
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American
South Asian or Indian American
Mean Score
Ethnicity
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 46

Organizational and Social
The two categories of the organizational and social influence are cultural models and
cultural settings. There are two cultural models: the hijab cultural model (e.g., the hijab is a form
of empowerment) and the American cultural model (e.g., the hijab is a form of oppression). The
cultural setting is the workplace.
Cultural model. The data suggested that the differences between the hijab cultural model
and the American cultural model could serve as a barrier. There was a near split in responses
when asked if the American culture was accepting of the hijab: 49.7% either strongly agreed or
agreed and 49.4% either strongly disagreed or disagreed. Lastly, 55.7% of the participants either
strongly agreed or agreed that employment laws were sufficient to protect their religious rights in
the workplace, while 35.1% either strongly disagreed or disagreed. However, 9.2% of the
participants declined to answer this question.
Table 7
Distribution of participant responses to Cultural Model items
Survey Item Response n (%) N = 336

Q.20 American culture is accepting
of my hijab
Strongly Disagree 29 8.6%

Disagree 137 40.8%

Agree 141 42.0%

Strongly Agree 26 7.7%

Declined to answer 3 0.9%

Q.25 Employment laws are adequate Strongly Disagree 24 7.1%

Disagree 94 28.0%

Agree 142 42.3%

Strongly Agree 45 13.4%

Declined to answer 31 9.2%

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 47

The reliability of the cultural model scale was slightly lower than the acceptable
threshold (α = 0.67). Overall, respondents had high scores on the cultural model scale (M 2.6, SD
0.7). The mean score for the cultural model scale also varied by age; however, scores did not
vary significantly by ethnicity or region.

Figure 5. Distribution of mean scores on cultural model scale by age category.
There was a positive correlation between cultural model scores and age (r = 0.14, p <
0.05), and between cultural model scores and being Latino or Hispanic American (r = 0.13, p <
0.05). The linear regression analysis (Appendix I) suggested that age was a significant predictor
of cultural model scores. Holding all other variables constant, when comparing participants who
were 40 years of age or older, the mean score was higher on average than participants who were
between 18 and 24 years of age (β = 0.28, p = 0.04). Lastly, participants who identified as Latino
or Hispanic American scored higher in the cultural model category than participants who
identified as Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American (β = 0.59, p = 0.03).
Cultural settings. The data suggested that the workplace may not serve as a barrier to
Muslim women who wear the hijab protecting their religious rights. Most participants either
2.25
2.3
2.35
2.4
2.45
2.5
2.55
2.6
2.65
2.7
2.75
18-24 years 25-40 years >40 years
Mean Score
Age Category
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 48

strongly agreed or agreed (74.7%) that their employers were accepting of their hijab, and 68.2%
either strongly agreed or agreed that their employer did enough to protect their religious rights in
the workplace. Furthermore, 53.8% of the participants either strongly agreed or agreed that they
were comfortable reporting discrimination to their HR department, and 52.4% either strongly
agreed or agreed that their employer’s HR departments were equipped to handle religious
discrimination in the workplace. Moreover, 58.3% either strongly disagreed or disagreed that
they have witnessed other Muslim women suffer discrimination because of their hijab in the
workplace. However, the cultural setting items had the highest number of decline-to-answer
responses in the survey.
Table 8
Distribution of participant responses to Cultural Setting items
Survey Item Response n % N = 336

Q.19 Witnessed hijab-wearing women
discriminated against
Strongly Agree 41 12.2%

Agree 87 25.9%

Disagree 152 45.2%

Strongly Disagree 44 13.1%

Declined to answer 12 3.6%

Q.21 Feel that my employer is accepting of my
hijab
Strongly Disagree 8 2.4%

Disagree 11 3.3%

Agree 117 34.8%

Strongly Agree 134 39.9%

Declined to answer 66 19.6%

Q.22 Employer protects my religious rights in
the workplace
Strongly Disagree 13 3.9%

Disagree 29 8.6%

Agree 133 39.6%

Strongly Agree 96 28.6%

Declined to answer 65 19.3%

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 49

Table 8, continued
Q.23 HR departments equipped to handle
religious discrimination
Strongly Disagree 15 4.5%

Disagree 57 17.0%

Agree 121 36.0%

Strongly Agree 55 16.4%

Declined to answer 88 26.2%

Q.24 Comfortable with reporting discrimination
to HR
Strongly Disagree 14 4.2%

Disagree 75 22.3%

Agree 113 33.6%

Strongly Agree 68 20.2%

Declined to answer 66 19.6%

The reliability of the cultural setting scale was above the acceptable threshold (α = 0.78).
Overall, respondents had high scores on the cultural setting scale (M 3.0, SD 0.60). However, the
mean score for the cultural setting scale did not vary by age, ethnicity, or region.
There was a positive correlation between cultural setting scores and being South Asian or
Indian American (r = 0.14, p < 0.05). Lastly, the linear regression analysis (Appendix J)
suggested that participants who indicated that they had reported discrimination to their employer
had lower cultural setting scores (β = -0.49, p < 0.001).
Solutions and Recommendations
Presented in this section are the proposed solutions and recommendations that could
assist in eliminating the knowledge, motivation, organization, and social gaps that impact the
ability of hijab-wearing women from protecting their religious rights in the workplace. A more
comprehensive implementation and evaluation plan regarding the proposed solutions and their
effectiveness is presented in Appendix K using the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016).

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 50

Knowledge
According to Mujtaba and Cavico (2012), educating the workforce is critical to solving
religious discrimination in the workplace and could be accomplished through various
approaches. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that the approaches to educating an individual are
through information, job aids, training, or education. However, which approach should be
selected depends upon the type of knowledge that is needed to accomplish a goal.
The two assumed knowledge influences of this study were factual knowledge and
procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge is the knowledge of
rudimentary terminology, details, or elements related to a specific domain needed to solve a
problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge is the knowledge regarding the
process or steps on how to accomplish a goal or to solve a problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011).
Factual knowledge. The results of the data analysis indicated participants had a good
factual understanding of their rights and resources (i.e., the knowledge of constitutional rights,
statutory rights, and resources). However, the analysis did indicate that there could be a gap in
factual knowledge for participants in specific demographic categories, including age, marital
status, and region. Therefore, a solution to close the gap in factual knowledge is appropriate.
Since factual knowledge is considered the most basic form of information an individual
needs to know to accomplish a goal, it is suggested that employers, universities, and Muslim
community centers provide information pamphlets to Muslim women who wear the hijab that
contain their rights and resources (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Specifically, the information pamphlets should contain their constitutional rights, statutory
rights, and resources available to them to address religious discrimination in the workplace.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 51

Moreover, given the arcane nature of employment laws, an information pamphlet would limit
extraneous cognitive load (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009) and increase the reader’s
working memory capacity (Mayer, 2011).
Procedural knowledge. The results of the data analysis indicated that there was a gap in
procedural knowledge for most participants. Specifically, participants did not have the
procedural knowledge of how to file a workplace religious discrimination complaint with the
EEOC. Therefore, a solution to close the gap in procedural knowledge should be provided.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), a job aid is a useful tool for summarizing actions
and decisions or to serve as reminders on how to perform a task. Therefore, a job aid that
enumerates the process of filing a workplace religious discrimination complaint with the EEOC
should be provided to Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workforce. This job aid should
be provided by employers, universities, and Muslim community centers. Lastly, given the
arduous process of filing a complaint with the EEOC, a job aid would limit extraneous cognitive
load (Kirschner et al., 2009)
Motivation
The two assumed motivation influences of this study were self-efficacy theory (Bandura,
1991; Pajares, 2006) and attribution theory (Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy is defined as an
individual’s belief in their ability to accomplish a goal (Bandura, 1991; Pajares, 2006).
Attribution is defined as attributing an individual’s success or failure to a specific cause or factor
(Rueda, 2011). There was also an assumption that stereotype threat could have an impact on self-
efficacy and attribution (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotype threat theory postulates that
individuals who attempt to disprove a stereotype of their respective group may ultimately cause
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 52

them to become self-conscious and frustrated, thus inadvertently validating the stereotype (Steele
& Aronson, 1995).
Self-efficacy. The results of the data presented mixed results as it pertains to the self-
efficacy of participants. Specifically, most participants were less confident about obtaining a job
because of their hijab. Participants also stated that knowing that there could be a stereotype of
Muslim women who wear the hijab has an impact on their confidence. Therefore, a solution to
the gap in self-efficacy should be provided.
Pajares (2006) found that modeling and feedback increase self-efficacy. This would
suggest that providing Muslim women who wear the hijab with a demonstration on how to
obtain jobs (e.g., interviewing) and providing feedback on their performance would increase
their self-efficacy. As such, the recommendation is that a demonstration on how to interview for
a job should be provided to Muslim women who wear the hijab with opportunities for practice
and feedback. This demonstration should be provided by employers, universities, and Muslim
community centers.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), an individual’s belief about their chances of
producing a desired outcome could impact an individual’s motivation. Additionally, according to
Pajares (2006), an individual’s self-efficacy could also be impacted by feedback received during
social interactions that occur within different cultural settings (e.g., work or school; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, employers, universities, and
Muslim community centers could help increase the self-efficacy of Muslim women who wear the
hijab by providing them positive feedback within their respective settings.
Attribution. The results of the data analysis suggested that attribution could be a barrier
to Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace. Specifically, the majority of participants
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 53

have attributed their inability to obtain a job to their hijab. Additionally, the majority of
participants felt that there was a negative stereotype toward Muslim women who wear the hijab.
As such, a solution to the attribution barrier should be provided.
Pintrich (2003) stated that adaptive attributions and control beliefs motivate individuals.
Rueda (2011) submitted that individuals seek to analyze, interpret, and attribute the reason of a
success or a failure to a specific cause. This would suggest that providing Muslim women who
wear the hijab with a demonstration on how to have greater control over their experiences in the
workplace would allow them to attribute their experiences to their effort, thus increasing
motivation. Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, changing the attribution of their
experiences in the workplace to effort rather than an artifact could increase motivation. As such,
the recommendation is that a demonstration should be provided with opportunities for practice
and feedback on how to have greater control over their experiences in the workplace. Employers,
universities, or Muslim community organizations should provide this demonstration to Muslim
women who wear the hijab.
King and Ahmad (2010) utilized an experimental field study to ascertain how the hijab
attributed to experiences in the workplace. The study included three women of disparate ethnic
backgrounds who were applying for jobs at retail stores, five observers, and eighty-six hiring
managers. The study found that women in Muslim attire who do not attempt to counteract the
stereotypes of Muslims are more likely to have a challenge finding a job and have experienced
more negative interactions than Muslim women who did not wear Muslim attire. As such,
demonstrating that the experiences in the workplace could be attributed to effort rather than the
hijab could have a positive impact on a participant’s motivation. Employers, universities, or
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 54

Muslim community organizations should provide this demonstration to Muslim women who
wear the hijab.
Organizational and Social
Two cultural models were assumed to be the social influences or barriers to Muslim
women who wear the hijab in the workplace: the hijab cultural model and the American cultural
model. One organizational influence was assumed to be an influence or barrier: the workplace
setting. The hijab cultural model views the hijab as a form of empowerment (Ali et al., 2015),
while the American cultural model views the hijab as a form of oppression (Droogsma, 2007),
thus causing a dissonance between the two models. The hijab cultural model was assumed to
have an influence on Muslim women who wear the hijab while the American cultural model was
assumed to have an influence on the workplace cultural setting.
Cultural models. The results of the data analysis suggested that the dissonance between
the two cultural models could serve as a barrier to Muslim women who wear the hijab in the
workplace. Specifically, participants were divided as to whether the American culture was
accepting of the hijab. Additionally, although most participants felt that employment laws were
sufficient to protect their religious rights in the workplace, more than a third (35.1%) did not
agree and nearly 9.2% declined to answer. The correlation and regression analysis also revealed
that the responses by participants were impacted by age and ethnicity. As such, a solution to the
cultural model gap should be provided.
It is recommended that a future study focus on the perceived gap of the American
culture’s acceptance of the hijab. However, there has been extensive research regarding the
perceived gap of employment laws, specifically as it relates to the ambiguities of Title VII and
how employers interpret the law. Benson (2014) stated that the courts’ interpretation of Title VII
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 55

views the hijab as not being a fundamental component of religious practice, that religious
discrimination is more difficult to adjudicate than racial discrimination, and that the burden of
proving religious discrimination falls on the employee instead of the employer. It has also been
suggested that the rules and regulations regarding Title VII are ambiguous to employers, thus
making it difficult to honor the law (Ghumman et al., 2013). As such, it is recommended that a
review of Title VII be updated to reflect the needs of the diverse workforce in the United States.
Cultural setting. The result of the analysis suggested that the workplace setting may not
serve as a barrier to Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace, as the majority of
participants responded favorably to their organizations and HR departments. However,
correlation and regression analysis revealed that responses by participants were impacted by
ethnicity and whether they had reported discrimination to a third-party agency. Moreover, the
cultural setting items received the largest number of decline to answer responses in the survey.
Therefore, a recommendation as it relates to the cultural setting is appropriate.
According to Schein (2004), the three levels of an organization’s culture are artifacts,
espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions, and that each level are not
mutually exclusive of one another. The first level of culture, artifacts, could be viewed as
ambiguous and difficult to decipher, and processes are categorized as an artifact of culture
(Schein, 2004). Clark and Estes (2008) stated that the risk of failure is greater when an
organization’s processes are inadequate, or if an organization’s actions inadequately support its
policies. Furthermore, an organization’s processes are also at a risk of failure if they are arduous,
not transparent, or automated (Rueda, 2011). As such, it is recommended that organizations
conduct a review of their policies and processes as it relates to eradicating religious
discrimination in the workplace. By default, then, this also would suggest that an organization
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 56

would need to analyze its overall culture, which includes its artifacts, espoused beliefs and
values, and underlying assumptions as it pertains to diversity and inclusion in the workplace
(Schein, 2004).
A study about wearing the hijab and its impact on employment outcomes conducted by
Reeves and colleagues (2012) suggested that organizations need to evaluate and understand
diversity, how diversity is managed, and what the impact of mismanaging diversity is. Moreover,
in another study regarding the discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the hijab,
Ghumman, Barclay, and Markel (2013) suggested that organizations’ HR departments need more
training on how to manage religious discrimination and how to communicate policies and
procedures regarding religious rights in the workplace. As such, it is recommended that
organizations utilize resources to better understand diversity and inclusion and to provide
training to their HR departments on how to eradicate religious discrimination in the workplace.
Conclusion
The September 11th terrorists attacks has had a profound impact on the Muslim
community, including Muslim women who wear the hijab. The impact has reverberated into the
workplace in which Muslim women who wear the hijab have been terminated from their jobs,
denied employment, or harassed. As such, it is important for Muslim women who wear the hijab
to understand their constitutional rights, statutory rights, and resources available to protect their
rights in the workplace. Employers, universities, and Muslim community centers need to also
provide trainings and demonstrations that will help Muslim women who wear the hijab increase
their self-efficacy in the workplace and attribute their success and failures to effort rather than an
artifact (the hijab). Moreover, organizations and their respective HR departments should utilize
resources to create an environment conducive to diversity and inclusion and to eradicate
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 57

workplace religious discrimination. Finally, the language in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 should be revaluated and updated to reflect the needs of today’s diverse workforce.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 58

REFERENCES
Ali, S. R., Yamada, T., & Mahmood, A. (2015). Relationships of the practice of hijab, workplace
discrimination, social class, job stress, and job satisfaction among Muslim American
women. Journal of Employment Counseling, 52(4), 146-157. doi:10.1002/joec.12020
American Civil Liberties Union. (2008). Discrimination against Muslim women - fact sheet.
Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/discrimination-against-muslim-women-fact-
sheet?redirect=discrimination-against-muslim-women-fact-sheet#9
American Civil Liberties Union. (2012). Muslim former employee sues Disney for
discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.aclusocal.org/muslim-former-employee-
sues-disney/
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Aslam, S. (2011). Hijab in the workplace: Why title VII does not adequately protect employees
from discrimination on the basis of religious dress and appearance. UMKC Law Review,
80(1), 221.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Benson, K. (2014). The freedom to believe and the freedom to practice: Title VII, Muslim
women, and hijab. UCLA J. Islamic & Near EL, 13, 1.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, pub.L. 88-352, 78 stat. 241 (1964).
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 59

Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2003). Perspectives and experiences of Muslim women who veil on
college campuses. Journal of College Student Development 44(1), 47–66.
Council on American-Islamic Relations. (2016, August 3). CAIR seeks reinstatement of Va.
Muslim woman fired over hijab [blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.cair.com/press-
center/press-releases/13687-cair-seeks-reinstatement-of-va-muslim-woman-fired-over-
hijab.html
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design (4th ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.
Davis, D. W., & Silver, B. D. (2003). Stereotype threat and race of interviewer effects in a
survey on political knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 33-45.
doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00003
Droogsma, R. A. (2007). Redefining hijab: American Muslim women’s standpoints on veiling.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 294-319.
Dusek, G., Yurova, Y., & Ruppel, C. P. (2015). Using social media and targeted snowball
sampling to survey a hard-to-reach population: A case study. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 10, 279-299.
Eliasoph, I. (2008). Know Your (Lack Of) Rights: Reexamining the Causes and Effects of
Phantom Employment Rights. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal., 12(2),
197-232.
Estlund, C. L. (2002). How wrong are employees about their rights, and why does it matter?
(Research Conference on Behavioral Law and Economics in the Workplace). New York
University Law Review, 77(1), 6–35.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 60

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Ghumman, S., & Jackson, L. (2010). The downside of religious attire: The Muslim headscarf and
expectations of obtaining employment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 4-23.
Ghumman, S., & Ryan, A. M. (2013). Not welcome here: Discrimination towards women who
wear the Muslim headscarf. Human Relations, 66(5), 671-698.
doi:10.1177/0018726712469540
Ghumman, S., Ryan, A. M., Barclay, L. A., & Markel, K. S. (2013). Religious discrimination in
the workplace: A review and examination of current and future trends. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 439-454.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2002). Islamic culture and democracy: Testing the ‘clash of
civilizations’ thesis. Comparative Sociology, 1(3-4), 235-263.
doi:10.1163/156913302100418592
Khalid, A. (2011). Lifting the veil: Muslim women explain their choice. NPR Special Series:
Hidden World of Girls,
King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. (2010). An experimental field study of interpersonal discrimination
toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 881–906.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 61

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kulenović, T. (2006). A veil (hijab) as a public symbol of a Muslim woman modern identity.
Collegium Antropologicum, 30(4), 713–718.
Marcum, T., & Perry, S. J. (2010). Dressed for success: Can a claim of religious discrimination
be successful? Labor Law Journal, 61(4), 184.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Mohamed, B. (2016). A new estimate of the US Muslim population. Retrieved from Pew
Research Center Website: Http://Www.Pewresearch.Org/Fact-Tank/2016/01/06/Anew-
Estimate-of-the-Us-Muslim-Population,
Moore, K. M. (2007). Visible through the veil: The regulation of Islam in American law.
Sociology of Religion, 68(3), 237–251. doi:10.1093/socrel/68.3.237
Mujtaba, B. G., & Cavico, F. J. (2012). Discriminatory practices against Muslims in the
American workplace. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9(1), 98.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://phys.org/news/2010-09-muslim-
women-headscarves-workplace-discrimination.html
Pasha-Zaidi, N., Masson, T., & Pennington, M. N. (2014). Can I get a job if I wear hijab? An
exploratory study of the perceptions of South Asian Muslim women in the US and the
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 62

UAE. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 3(1)
doi:10.5861/ijrsp.2013.357
Paulose, R. K. (2015). Is an employer liable under title VII of the civil rights act only if the
employer has actual knowledge of the need for a religious accommodation based on
direct notice from an applicant or employee? Preview of United States Supreme Court
Cases, 42(5), 179–183.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Read, J. G., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2000). To veil or not to veil? A case study of identity
negotiation among Muslim women in Austin, Texas. Gender & Society, 14(3), 395–417.
Reeves, T. C., McKinney, A. P., & Azam, L. (2012). Muslim women’s workplace experiences:
Implications for strategic diversity initiatives. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, 32(1), 49-67. doi:10.1108/02610151311305614
Williams, R. H., & Vashi, G. (2007). “Hijab” and American Muslim women: Creating the space
for autonomous selves. Sociology of Religion, 68(3), 269–287.
doi:10.1093/socrel/68.3.269
Robinson, R. K., Franklin, G. M., & Hamilton, R. H. (2012). The hijab and the kufi: Employer
rights to convey their business image versus employee rights to religious expression.
Southern Law Journal, 22(1), 79.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 63

Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft
Excel. 2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.
doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Stone, S. (2016, August 3). Virginia woman says she was fired for wearing hijab [video].
Retrieved from https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Virginia-Woman-Says-She-
Was-Fired-for-Wearing-Hijab-389134252.html
Tariq-Munir, E. (2014). The dynamics of wearing hijab for Muslim American women in the
united states (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
(1560366)
U. S. Const. amend. I.
U. S. Const. amend. IV.
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2006). Alamo Car Rental Guilty of
Religious Bias Federal Court Rules in EEOC Lawsuit. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-30-06.cfm
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 64

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2010). Abercrombie & Fitch Sued for
Religious Discrimination. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-1-10.cfm
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2012). Morningside House of Ellicott City
to pay $25,000 for religious discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/
newsroom/release/8-6-12.cfm
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2015). Abercrombie resolves religious
discrimination case following Supreme Court ruling in favor of EEOC. Retrieved from
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-28-15.cfm
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Charges filed on the basis of religion
- Muslim or national origin - middle eastern FY 1995 - FY 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/religion_muslim_origin_middle_easter
n.cfm
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Equal Employment Opportunity Act
of 1972. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eeo_1972.html
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Social barriers. Retrieved from
https://agclass.nal.usda.gov/mtwdk.exe?k=glossary&l=60&w=11910&n=1&s=5&t=2
University of Hawaii at Manoa. (2010). Muslim women who wear headscarves face workplace
discrimination in US: Study. Retrieved from http://phys.org/news/2010-09-muslim-
women-headscarves-workplace-discrimination.html
Unkelbach, C., Schneider, H., Gode, K., & Senft, M. (2010). A turban effect, too: Selection
biases against women wearing Muslim headscarves. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 1(4), 378–383.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 65

Appendix A: Protocols

Survey Questions

Part 1: Demographics

1. Are you over the age of 18? [Yes/No] If no, survey closes.
2. Please select your age. [Drop Down menu]
3. Do you identify yourself as a Muslim female who wears the hijab (head scarf)? [Yes/No]
If no, survey closes.
4. Are you currently employed in the United States (either full-time or part-time)? [Yes/No]
If yes, skips to Q7-8; 10-41.
5. Have you ever been employed in the United States (either full-time or part-time)?
[Yes/No] If yes, skips to Q7-8;10-18; 23-40.
6. Are you currently seeking employment in the United States (either full-time or part-
time)? [Yes/No] If yes, skips to Q7;9-18;23;26-31;34-40. If no survey closes.
7. In which state do you currently reside? [Drop Down menu]
8. Are you currently employed by or have you been employed by ANY of the following:
[Yes/No/I don’t know/Decline to Answer]
Private Business that has 15 or more employees, State or Local Government that has 15
or more employees, Labor Union that has 15 or more members, Federal Government,
Educational Institution, Employment Agency (including using its services)
9. Are you currently seeking employment with ANY of the following: [Yes/No/I don’t
know/Decline to Answer]
Private Business that has 15 or more employees, State or Local Government that has 15
or more employees, Labor Union that has 15 or more members, Federal Government,
Educational Institution, Employment Agency (including using its services)
10. What is your marital status? [Married/Single/Divorced/Widowed/Other – please
specify/Decline to answer ]
11. Which of the following represents your racial or ethnic heritage?
[Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American/Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African
American/Latino or Hispanic American/East Asian or Asian American/South Asian or
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 66

Indian American /Middle Eastern or Arab American/Native American or Alaskan
Native/Other, please specify/Decline to answer]
Part 2: Research Questions (Knowledge, Motivation, Organizational, and Social)
Please indicate the extent to which agree or disagree with each of the statements below
[Strongly Disagree/Disagree/Agree/Strongly Agree/Decline to Answer]
12. I feel confident in my ability to protect my religious rights in the workplace.
13. I know my constitutional and statutory rights that protect my rights to wear the hijab in
the workplace
14. I know the resources (e.g., organizations, legal entities, support groups, etc.) that are
available to help me address religious discrimination in the workplace?
15. I know the process of filing a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
16. Knowing that there could be a stereotype of Muslim women who wear the hijab has an
impact on my confidence.
17. I have witnessed other Muslim women be discriminated against in the workplace because
of their hijab.
18. I feel that the American culture is accepting of my hijab.
19. I feel that my employer is accepting of my hijab.
20. I feel that my employer does enough to protect my religious rights in the workplace.
21. I feel that my employer’s human resources departments are equipped to handle religious
discrimination in the workforce.
22. I am comfortable with reporting religious workplace discrimination to my employer’s
human resources department.
23. I feel that employment laws are adequate enough to protect my religious rights in the
workplace.
24. I feel that wearing the hijab can be attributed to an instance where I was terminated from
my job.
25. Please explain your response to question 24 (Not Required)
26. I feel that wearing the hijab can be attributed to an instance where I did NOT obtain a
job.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 67

27. Please Explain your response to question 26 (Not Required)
28. I feel less confident about getting a job when wearing the hijab.
29. Please explain your response to question 28 (Not Required)
30. I feel that there is a negative stereotype of Muslim women who wear the hijab in the
workforce.
31. Please explain your response to question 30 (Not Required)
Part 3: Reporting Discrimination
32. Have you ever reported workplace discrimination because of your hijab to your current or
former employer? [Yes/No/Decline to Answer]
33. Please explain your response to question 32 (Not Required)
34. Have you ever reported workplace discrimination because of your hijab to any
organization other than your current, former, or prospective employer (e.g., ACLU,
EEOC, CAIR, etc.)? [Yes/No/Decline to Answer]
35. Please explain your response to question 34 (Not Required)
36. Have you ever filed a lawsuit due to an experience of workplace discrimination because
of your hijab? [Yes/No/Decline to Answer]
37. Please explain your response to question 36 (Not Required)
Part 4: Open-Ended Questions (Responses are Not Required)
38. Please share how you feel the hijab has had either a positive or negative impact on your
experience in the workforce.
39. Please feel free to share anything else that you would like to add
40. Are you willing to provide your contact information to be interviewed for additional
questions that would assist with this study? [Yes/No]. If yes please provide your name,
phone number, email, and state.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 68

Appendix B: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Survey

Participating Stakeholders
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The individual must be 18 years of age or older. This is a key requirement
by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board.
Criterion 2. The individual must be a Muslim woman who wears the hijab. The primary
stakeholder group for this project are Muslim women who wear the hijab.
Criterion 3. The individual must reside in the United States. The focus of this project is
on Muslim women who wear the hijab who reside in the United States.
Criterion 4. The individual must be employed in, have been employed in, or seeking
employment in the United States, either full time or part time. The focus of this project is on
Muslim women who wear the hijab who have experience in the workforce.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Due to the size of the stakeholder’s population, location (i.e., the entire United States),
current political climate, and cost limitations, a snowball sampling approach was used for this
study (Droogsma, 2007). A recruitment request via a correspondence that contained the survey
was shared with several Muslim organizations and community leaders via email, social media
postings, and website “contact us” pages. The correspondence enumerated the key components
of the study (e.g., the purpose of the study, participant involvement, criteria, and confidentiality).
The Muslim organizations included Mosques, community centers, student organizations,
Facebook groups, LinkedIn Groups, and civil rights organizations. The correspondence and link
to the survey was then circulated by these Muslim groups and community leaders to their
respective networks.
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 69

Appendix C: Demographics
Characteristics Frequency (%) N = 336
Age, median (IQR) 31.0 (24.0, 39.5)
Ethnicity
Black, Afro-Caribbean, or African American 36 (10.7%)
East Asian or Asian American 18 (5.4%)
Latino or Hispanic American 9 (2.7%)
Middle Eastern or Arab American 132 (39.3%)
Native American or Alaskan Native 3 (0.9%)
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American 42 (12.5%)
South Asian or Indian American 76 (22.6%)
Other (please specify) 16 (4.8%)
Declined to answer 4 (1.2%)
Marital Status
Single 130 (38.7%)
Married 170 (50.6%)
Separated, Divorced or Widowed 32 (9.5%)
Declined to answer 4 (1.2%)
US-Based Employment

Currently Employed 273 (81.3%)
Previously Employed 53 (15.8%)
Seeking Employment 10 (3.0%)
US-Based Employment (Title VII)

Currently Employed 279 (83.0%)
Seeking Employment 8 (2.4%)
Not Employed 49 (14.6%)
US Region

Southeast 29 (8.6%)
Southwest 29 (8.6%)
Pacificwest 71 (21.1%)
Mountainwest 11 (3.3%)
Midwest 43 (12.8%)
Northeast 28 (8.3%)
Midatlantic 123 (36.6%)
Other 2 (0.6%)
Reported Discrimination to Employer
No 293 (87.2%)
Yes 29 (8.6%)
Declined to answer 14 (4.2%)

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 70

Characteristics Frequency (%) N = 336
Reported Discrimination to ACLU, EECO, etc.
No 313 (93.2%)
Yes 20 (6.0%)
Declined to answer 3 (0.9%)
Filed a Lawsuit to Address Discrimination
No 329 (97.9%)
Yes 7 (2.1%)
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 71

Appendix D: Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 1.00

2 0.51*** 1.00

3 0.33*** 0.19*** 1.00

4 0.22*** 0.07 0.56*** 1.00

5 0.51*** 0.33*** 0.52*** 0.56*** 1.00

6 0.33*** 0.33*** 0.46*** 0.58*** 0.57*** 1.00

7 0.15** 0.34*** 0.17** 0.04 0.04 0.14* 1.00

8 -0.06 -0.01 0.02 -0.15* -0.07 -0.09 -0.03 1.00

9 0.04 0.04 0.06 -0.01 -0.05 0.01 0.10 -0.08 1.00

10 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.14* 0.08 0.13* 0.13* -0.06 -0.04 1.00

11 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.00 -0.05
-
0.28***
-
0.19*** -0.13* 1.00

12 0.02 0.12* 0.11* -0.10 0.05 -0.11 0.09 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.08 1.00

13 0.03 -0.04 -0.07 0.00 -0.02 -0.06 0.19*** -0.13* -0.09 -0.06
-
0.30*** -0.04 1.00
14 0.06 -0.03 0.05 0.19** 0.14* 0.10 -0.16**
-
0.19*** -0.13* -0.09
-
0.43*** -0.05
-
0.20***
15 -0.10 0.00 -0.06 -0.10 -0.08 -0.03 -0.02 -0.08 -0.05 -0.04
-
0.18*** -0.02 -0.08
16 -0.07 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 -0.09 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.09 -0.01 -0.04
17 -0.15**
-
0.24*** -0.01 0.10 -0.06 -0.06
-
0.52*** 0.18*** -0.03 -0.09 -0.05 -0.08
-
0.21***
18 0.04 0.12* -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.03 0.33*** -0.18** 0.02 0.09 0.03 -0.03 0.18**
19 0.17** 0.17** 0.10 -0.07 0.12 0.06 0.29*** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.17** 0.04
20 0.06 -0.02 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.10 -0.01 -0.03
21 -0.04 0.04 -0.01 -0.04 0.00 -0.08 0.07 0.06 -0.03 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.01
22 0.07 0.04 -0.02 -0.00 0.08 0.02 -0.09 -0.00 0.02 0.01 -0.10 -0.03 -0.05
23 0.06 0.03 -0.09 0.03 0.02 -0.09 0.07 -0.11* 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.07
24 -0.12* -0.07 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 0.03 0.05 0.15** 0.03 -0.03 -0.08 -0.02 0.08
25 0.02 -0.07 0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.06 -0.03 -0.08 -0.01 -0.06 -0.02 0.06 0.02
26 -0.03 -0.01 -0.09 -0.02 -0.05 0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.07 -0.05 0.07 -0.03 0.05
27
-0.03 0.01 0.13* 0.03 -0.00 0.10 -0.03 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.03 -0.01 -0.10

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 72

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001

1 Factual Knowledge 7 Age 13 Non-Hispanic White or
Euro-American
19 Other Marital
Status
25 Midwest
2 Procedural Knowledge 8 Black or African American 14 South Asian or Indian
American
20 Other US
Region
26 Northeast
3 Self-Efficacy 9 East Asian or Asian American 15 Other Ethnicity 21 Southeast 27 Midatlantic
4 Attribution 10 Latino or Hispanic American 16 Ethnicity (Declined) 22 Southwest
5 Cultural Setting 11 Middle Eastern or Arab American 17 Single 23 Pacificwest
6 Cultural Model 12 Native American or Alaskan
Native
18 Married 24 Mountainwest
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 73

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 1.00

15 -0.12* 1.00

16 -0.06 -0.02 1.00

17 0.14* 0.02 0.03 1.00

18 -0.08 -0.00 -0.00 -0.80*** 1.00

19 -0.10 -0.03 -0.04 -0.28*** -
0.35***
1.00

20 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.06 0.08 -0.03 1.00

21 -0.12* 0.13* -0.03 -0.05 0.03 0.03 -0.02 1.00

22 0.14* 0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.01 0.10 -0.02 -0.09 1.00

23 -0.00 -0.05 0.01 -0.11* 0.15** -0.06 -0.04 -0.16** -0.16** 1.00

24 -0.10 0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.06 -0.06 -0.10 1.00
25 0.07 -0.00 0.04 0.06 -0.05 -0.02 -0.03 -0.12* -0.12* -
0.20***
-0.07 1.00
26 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 0.09 -0.07 -0.03 -0.02 -0.09 -0.09 -0.16** -0.06 -0.12* 1.00
27 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.02 -0.06 -
0.23***
-0.23*** -
0.39***
-
0.14*
-
0.29***
-
0.23***
1.00

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 74

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001

1 Factual Knowledge 7 Age 13 Non-Hispanic White or
Euro-American
19 Other Marital
Status
25 Midwest
2 Procedural Knowledge 8 Black or African American 14 South Asian or Indian
American
20 Other US
Region
26 Northeast
3 Self-Efficacy 9 East Asian or Asian American 15 Other Ethnicity 21 Southeast 27 Midatlantic
4 Attribution 10 Latino or Hispanic American 16 Ethnicity (Declined) 22 Southwest
5 Cultural Setting 11 Middle Eastern or Arab American 17 Single 23 Pacificwest
6 Cultural Model 12 Native American or Alaskan
Native
18 Married 24 Mountainwest
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 75

Appendix E: Linear Regression of Factual Knowledge Score on Predictors
SE – standard error
a
reference category is 18-40 years
b
reference category is Black, Afro-Caribbean or African American
c
reference category is Single
d
reference category is Other US Region

Variables (N = 318) Beta SE P-value
Age
a

25-40 years 0.22* 0.10 0.04
> 40 years 0.30* 0.13 0.02
Ethnicity
b

East Asian or Asian American -0.01 0.20 0.96
Latino or Hispanic American 0.12 0.27 0.65
Middle Eastern or Arab American -0.05 0.14 0.71
Native American or Alaskan Native -0.08 0.42 0.85
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American -0.07 0.17 0.69
South Asian or Indian American 0.01 0.15 0.94
Other (please specify) -0.29 0.21 0.17
Declined to answer -0.30 0.41 0.45
Marital Status
c

Married 0.03 0.10 0.73
Separated, Divorced, or Widowed 0.31* 0.14 0.03
US Region
d

Southeast -0.61 0.49 0.21
Southwest -0.31 0.49 0.53
Pacificwest -0.43 0.48 0.37
Mountainwest -0.97 0.52 0.06
Midwest -0.41 0.49 0.40
Northeast -0.59 0.49 0.23
Midatlantic -0.56 0.48 0.25
Reported Discrimination to Employer -0.23 0.17 0.17
Reported Discrimination to ACLU, EECO, etc. 0.00 0.18 0.99
Filed a Lawsuit to Address Discrimination -0.03 0.31 0.92
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 76

Appendix F: Linear Regression of Procedural Knowledge Score on Predictors
SE – standard error
a
reference category is 18-40 years
b
reference category is Black, Afro-Caribbean or African American
c
reference category is Single
d
reference category is Other US Region

Variables (N = 318) Beta SE P-value
Age
a

25-40 years 0.24 0.13 0.06
> 40 years 0.64*** 0.16 <0.001
Ethnicity
b

East Asian or Asian American -0.01 0.26 0.98
Latino or Hispanic American 0.16 0.34 0.63
Middle Eastern or Arab American -0.06 0.17 0.73
Native American or Alaskan Native 0.44 0.54 0.41
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American -0.32 0.21 0.12
South Asian or Indian American -0.02 0.19 0.90
Other (please specify) -0.02 0.26 0.94
Declined to answer -0.07 0.51 0.89
Marital Status
c

Married 0.20 0.12 0.10
Separated, Divorced, or Widowed 0.43* 0.18 0.02
US Region
d

Southeast 0.26 0.62 0.67
Southwest 0.31 0.62 0.62
Pacificwest 0.24 0.61 0.69
Mountainwest -0.15 0.66 0.81
Midwest 0.11 0.62 0.86
Northeast 0.30 0.62 0.63
Midatlantic 0.30 0.60 0.62
Reported Discrimination to Employer 0.06 0.21 0.77
Reported Discrimination to ACLU, EECO, etc. 0.47* 0.23 0.04
Filed a Lawsuit to Address Discrimination -0.13 0.39 0.73
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 77

Appendix G: Linear Regression of Self-Efficacy Score on Predictors
SE – standard error
a
reference category is 18-40 years
b
reference category is Black, Afro-Caribbean or African American
c
reference category is Single
d
reference category is Other US Region

Variables (N = 312) Beta SE P-value
Age
a

25-40 years 0.20* 0.10 0.04
> 40 years 0.32* 0.12 0.01
Ethnicity
b

East Asian or Asian American 0.05 0.19 0.79
Latino or Hispanic American 0.06 0.25 0.83
Middle Eastern or Arab American -0.09 0.13 0.49
Native American or Alaskan Native 0.66 0.40 0.10
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American -0.21 0.16 0.19
South Asian or Indian American -0.01 0.14 0.93
Other (please specify) -0.28 0.19 0.15
Declined to answer 0.24 0.38 0.52
Marital Status
c

Married -0.14 0.09 0.13
Separated, Divorced, or Widowed 0.05 0.14 0.71
US Region
d

Southeast -0.12 0.46 0.79
Southwest -0.13 0.46 0.77
Pacificwest -0.23 0.45 0.60
Mountainwest -0.11 0.49 0.82
Midwest -0.06 0.45 0.90
Northeast -0.33 0.46 0.47
Midatlantic -0.09 0.45 0.83
Reported Discrimination to Employer -0.08 0.16 0.62
Reported Discrimination to ACLU, EECO, etc. -0.49*** 0.17 <0.001
Filed a Lawsuit to Address Discrimination 0.16 0.30 0.60
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 78

Appendix H: Linear Regression of Attribution Score on Predictors
SE – standard error
a
reference category is 18-40 years
b
reference category is Black, Afro-Caribbean or African American
c
reference category is Single
d
reference category is Other US Region

Variables (N = 281) Beta SE P-value
Age
a

25-40 years 0.31* 0.11 0.01
> 40 years 0.34* 0.14 0.01
Ethnicity
b

East Asian or Asian American 0.11 0.22 0.62
Latino or Hispanic American 0.69* 0.26 0.01
Middle Eastern or Arab American 0.20 0.14 0.17
Native American or Alaskan Native -0.10 0.43 0.81
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American 0.29 0.17 0.08
South Asian or Indian American 0.42* 0.16 0.01
Other (please specify) -0.09 0.22 0.70
Declined to answer 0.56 0.49 0.26
Marital Status
c

Married -0.35*** 0.10 <0.001
Separated, Divorced, or Widowed -0.35* 0.15 0.02
US Region
d

Southeast -0.76 0.49 0.12
Southwest -0.79 0.49 0.11
Pacificwest -0.77 0.48 0.11
Mountainwest -0.82 0.52 0.12
Midwest -0.87 0.49 0.07
Northeast -0.97 0.49 0.05
Midatlantic -0.87 0.48 0.07
Reported Discrimination to Employer -0.21 0.19 0.26
Reported Discrimination to ACLU, EECO, etc. -0.56*** 0.19 <0.001
Filed a Lawsuit to Address Discrimination -0.32 0.35 0.36
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 79

Appendix I: Linear Regression of Cultural Model Score on Predictors
SE – standard error
a
reference category is 18-40 years
b
reference category is Black, Afro-Caribbean or African American
c
reference category is Single
d
reference category is Other US Region

Variables (N = 293) Beta SE P-value
Age
a

25-40 years 0.16 0.11 0.16
> 40 years 0.28* 0.13 0.04
Ethnicity
b

East Asian or Asian American 0.13 0.22 0.55
Latino or Hispanic American 0.59* 0.27 0.03
Middle Eastern or Arab American 0.13 0.14 0.37
Native American or Alaskan Native -0.51 0.43 0.24
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American 0.01 0.17 0.95
South Asian or Indian American 0.29 0.15 0.06
Other (please specify) 0.08 0.22 0.71
Declined to answer 0.29 0.42 0.48
Marital Status
c

Married -0.03 0.10 0.76
Separated, Divorced, or Widowed 0.08 0.15 0.58
US Region
d

Southeast -0.61 0.50 0.23
Southwest -0.35 0.50 0.49
Pacificwest -0.52 0.49 0.29
Mountainwest -0.20 0.54 0.71
Midwest -0.49 0.50 0.33
Northeast -0.29 0.50 0.57
Midatlantic -0.36 0.49 0.46
Reported Discrimination to Employer -0.17 0.17 0.33
Reported Discrimination to ACLU, EECO, etc. 0.34 0.19 0.07
Filed a Lawsuit to Address Discrimination 0.21 0.35 0.54
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 80

Appendix J: Linear Regression of Cultural Setting Score on Predictors
SE – standard error
a
reference category is 18-40 years
b
reference category is Black, Afro-Caribbean or African American
c
reference category is Single
d
reference category is Southeast US Region (No observations for Other US Region)

Variables (N = 237) Beta SE P-value
Age
a

25-40 years 0.10 0.11 0.33
> 40 years 0.03 0.13 0.82
Ethnicity
b

East Asian or Asian American -0.09 0.21 0.68
Latino or Hispanic American 0.36 0.26 0.17
Middle Eastern or Arab American 0.04 0.14 0.76
Native American or Alaskan Native 0.88 0.48 0.06
Non-Hispanic White or Euro-American 0.05 0.17 0.77
South Asian or Indian American 0.21 0.15 0.17
Other (please specify) -0.22 0.24 0.37
Declined to answer 0.55 0.44 0.21
Marital Status
c

Married -0.05 0.10 0.63
Separated, Divorced, or Widowed 0.20 0.14 0.17
US Region
d

Southwest 0.08 0.19 0.66
Pacificwest -0.01 0.16 0.95
Mountainwest -0.09 0.23 0.71
Midwest -0.06 0.19 0.76
Northeast -0.14 0.19 0.47
Midatlantic -0.08 0.15 0.59
Reported Discrimination to Employer -0.49*** 0.17 0.00
Reported Discrimination to ACLU, EECO, etc. -0.26 0.25 0.29
Filed a Lawsuit to Address Discrimination 0.60 0.40 0.13
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 81

Appendix K: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The integrated implementation and evaluation plan used for this study is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The process of evaluating training and
development programs is imperative to ensuring their efficaciousness and value (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model consists of four disparate levels of evaluation that are followed in
reverse of its numerical order: (4) Results, (3) Behavior, (2) Learning, and (1) Reaction
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Each level of the evaluation model asks key questions
regarding the training intervention which are:
• were the targeted outcomes a result of the training and what are the leading indicators
that determine this (level 4);
• are participants applying what they have learned and what are the critical behaviors that
determining this (level 3);
• did participants gain the required knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence, and
commitment (Level 2); and
• was the reaction of participants positive and did they find value in the training (level 1)?
The stakeholder group for this study is Muslim women who wear the hijab in the United
States who are employed, have been employed, or are seeking employment. This study evaluated
and recommended solutions to a participant’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational and
social barriers to protecting their religious rights in the workplace. As such, a specific
organization was not evaluated. Therefore, the integrated implementation and evaluation plan
will focus on solutions for employers, universities, and Muslim community groups who have
Muslim women who wear the hijab as employees, students, or members.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 82

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 9 illustrates the desired outcomes, metrics, and methods for employers,
universities, and Muslim community centers as it relates to Muslim women who wear the hijab
in the workplace. There are five desired outcomes that are internal and one that is external. All
desired outcomes are based on the recommended solutions to the evaluated knowledge,
motivational, organizational and social influences.
Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
1. Increase in factual
knowledge of Muslim
women who wear the hijab’
(i.e., constitutional rights,
statutory rights, and
resources available to
address workplace religious
discrimination)
100% of self-identified Muslim
women who wear the hijab receive
information pamphlets from their
employers, universities, or Muslim
community centers.
Number of self-identified
Muslim women who wear the
hijab that received information
pamphlets compared to the total
number of self-identified Muslim
women who wear the hijab that
exist in organizations,
universities, or Muslim
community centers.
2. Increase in Muslim
women who wear the hijab’
procedural knowledge
regarding how to file an
EEOC complaint.
100% of self-identified Muslim
women who wear the hijab receive
job aids from their employers,
universities, or Muslim community
centers.
Number of self-identified
Muslim women who wear the
hijab that received job aids
compared to the total number of
self-identified Muslim women
who wear the hijab that exist in
organizations, universities, or
Muslim community centers.
3. Increase in Muslim
women who wear the hijab’
self-efficacy as it relates to
obtaining a job.
100% of self-identified Muslim
women who wear the hijab
participate in demonstrations on
how to obtain a job (e.g.,
interviewing) that are conducted by
organizations, universities, or
Muslim community centers.
Demonstrations should allow for
practice and feedback.
Number of self-identified
Muslim women who wear the
hijab that participate in
demonstrations compared to the
total number of self-identified
Muslim women who wear the
hijab that exist in organizations,
universities, or Muslim
community centers.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 83

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
4. Increase in the number of
Muslim women who wear
the hijab that attribute their
experiences in the workplace
to their effort rather than
their hijab.
100% of self-identified Muslim
women who wear the hijab
participate in demonstrations on
how to have greater control over
their experiences in the workplace
that are conducted by
organizations, universities, or
Muslim community centers.
Demonstrations should allow for
practice and feedback.
Number of self-identified
Muslim women who wear the
hijab that participate in
demonstrations compared to the
total number of self-identified
Muslim women who wear the
hijab that exist in organizations,
universities, or Muslim
community centers.
5. Improve diversity and
inclusion in organizations.
Increase in positive feedback from
employees regarding their
organization’s managing of
diversity and inclusion.
Disseminate a survey twice a
year that gathers data regarding
employees’ perceptions of their
organization’s managing of
diversity and inclusion. The
difference between the first
survey and second survey
should be compared.
6. Increase in organizations’
HR departments’ proficiency
in eradicating workplace
religious discrimination.
An increase in the number of
trainings that the HR department
receives on how to manage
workplace religious discrimination.
Compare the number of
trainings received on a year-to-
year basis.
External Outcomes
7. Change the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 to reflect the
needs of the diverse
workforce in the United
States.
Actual change in the law that
reflects the needs of the diverse
workforce in the United States.
Formal review by legal experts
to assess whether the change
will be effective. Formal study
on the impact of the change
over time.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholder of focus is Muslim women who wear the hijab in the
workforce. The first critical behavior is that Muslim women who wear the hijab should be able to
enumerate their constitutional rights, statutory rights, and resources available to address
workplace religious discrimination. The second critical behavior is that they enumerate the steps
of filing an EEOC complaint. The third critical behavior is to model the behavior learned in a
demonstration provided by employers, universities, and Muslim community centers on how to
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 84

obtain a job (e.g., interview skills). The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these
outcome behaviors are illustrated in Table 10.
Table 10

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Muslim Women Who Wear the Hijab in the
Workplace
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Correctly enumerate
the constitutional rights,
statutory rights, and
resources available to
address workplace
religious discrimination
100% accuracy in listing
correct constitutional
rights and statutory
laws.

List at least three
resources (e.g., ACLU,
CAIR, and EEOC.

Utilize a testing format to
assess factual knowledge
items.
After 90 days of
employment for
employers; then
yearly thereafter.

After 30 days of the
start of a
university’s
semester, each
semester.

Two times per year
for Muslim
community centers.
2. Correctly enumerate
the steps of filing an
EEOC complaint
100% accuracy in listing
the correct steps to file
an EEOC complaint.
Utilize a questionnaire that
requests participant to list
the steps.
After 90 days of
employment for
employers; then
yearly thereafter.

After 30 days of the
start of a
university’s
semester, each
semester.

Two times per year
for Muslim
community centers.
3. Successfully model
behavior to obtain a job.
High performance
ratings in mock job
interviewing scenarios.
Utilize mock interviews. Yearly for
employers.

Every semester for
a university.

Two times per year
for Muslim
community centers.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 85

Required drivers. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), critical behaviors
need to be reinforced, monitored, and encouraged through various support and accountability
methods, tools, and techniques. Table 11, below, illustrates the key drivers for Muslim women
who wear the hijab in the workforce. Those drivers are an amalgam of reinforcement,
encouragement, reward, and monitoring.
Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Information pamphlet that has
the constitutional rights,
statutory rights, and resources
available to address
workplace religious
discrimination
Ongoing 1
Job aid that has the steps of
filing an EEOC complaint
Ongoing 2
Encouraging
Provide demonstrations on
how to obtain a job that
allows for practice and
feedback.
Ongoing 3
Rewarding
Positive feedback on job
interviewing behaviors.
Ongoing 3
Monitoring
Testing knowledge on
constitutional rights, statutory
rights, and resources available
to address workplace religious
discrimination.
Ongoing 1
Testing knowledge on process
of filing an EEOC complaint.
Ongoing 2
Mock interviews Ongoing 3

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 86

Organizational and social support. Employers, universities, and Muslim community
centers need to provide Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace with the tools,
resources, and support to be successful in the workplace and to reinforce the desired behaviors.
First, all three entities need to provide Muslim women who wear the hijab with information
pamphlets and job aids that reinforce their rights and the resources available to them. Second, all
three entities need to provide demonstrations on how to successfully obtain a job, which could
increase the self-efficacy of Muslim women who wear the hijab and allow them to attribute their
successes or failures to their effort. Third, employers need to invest time into promoting diversity
and inclusion in their workplace setting. Lastly, organizations need to utilize resources to train
their HR departments on how eliminate workplace religious discrimination. Lastly, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 needs to be updated to meet the needs of the diverse workforce in the United
States.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace will be able to:
1. List their constitutional rights, statutory rights, and resources available to protect their
rights in the workplace. (Declarative)
2. List the steps to filing an EEOC complaint. (Procedural)
3. Be confident in their ability to protect their rights in the workplace. (Self-Efficacy)
4. Attribute their successes or failures in the workplace to effort rather than their hijab.
(Attribution)
Program. For Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace to accomplish their
learning goals, employers, universities, and Muslim community centers will need to have a
program that consists of various tools and methods that will increase their knowledge and
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 87

motivation. Specifically, these entities should provide information pamphlets, job aids, and job
interviewing demonstrations. The information pamphlets consist of their legal rights and
resources that help them protect their religious rights in the workplace. The job aid should
contain the steps that are required to file an EEOC complaint. Both the information pamphlet and
job aid should be easily accessible, perhaps on an employer’s intranet, university’s website, or
Muslim community center’s website. Employers should then assess declarative knowledge via a
survey or questionnaire 90 days after employment then yearly thereafter, universities should
assess 30 days after the start of a semester, and Muslim community centers should assess 2 times
per year. Demonstrations on how to interview for a job or on specific interview skills should also
be provided by all three entities. For employers, universities, and Muslim community centers,
demonstrations should be provided at least twice times per year and up to four times per year.
However, mock interviews with scoring to assess a participant’s interviewing skills, confidence,
and ability should be provided once per year by employers; every semester for universities, and
twice per year by Muslim community centers.
Components of learning. The five components of learning are knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Muslim women who
wear the hijab need to have the declarative knowledge (their legal rights and resources) and
procedural knowledge (the process of filing an EEOC complaint) to protect their religious rights
in the workplace. They also need to find value in gaining the knowledge and skills to protect
their rights in the workplace. Lastly, they need to be confident in their ability and be committed
to applying the knowledge and skills that they have learned.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 88

Table 12
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it. ”
Testing on legal rights and resources. After 90 days of employment for employers;
then yearly thereafter.

After 30 days of the start of a university’s
semester, each semester.

Two times per year for Muslim community
centers.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now. ”
Questionnaire that requests participants to list
the steps to file an EEOC complaint.
After 90 days of employment for employers;
then yearly thereafter.

After 30 days of the start of a university’s
semester, each semester.

Two times per year for Muslim community
centers.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile. ”
Observations and scoring during mock
interview.
Yearly for employers.

Every semester for a university.

Two times per year for Muslim community
centers.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job. ”
Observations and scoring during mock
interview.
Yearly for employers.

Every semester for a university.

Two times per year for Muslim community
centers.
Commitment “I will do it on the job. ”
Open discussions following practice and
feedback.

Immediately after each testing or mock
interview.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 89

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), identified the components of reaction as engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfaction and suggested that assessing reaction is the simplest form of
evaluation that can be accomplished through surveys or observations. Table 13 identifies the
methods used to determine the reaction of Muslim women who wear the hijab in the workplace.
Due to the nature of this study, customer service will not be evaluated.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Participating in testing of declarative
knowledge
During testing
Participating in testing of procedural
knowledge
During testing
Participating in interview demonstrations During demonstration
Relevance
Mock interviews After training

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Immediately following all
testing activities and mock interviews, participants will be asked to complete a survey that
measures their attitudes and opinions about the program. Table 14 illustrates the survey
questions. The objective of the survey will be to ascertain if there was perceived value in the
training and if participants are committed to and confident in applying what they have learned.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 90

Table 14
Immediate Feedback Survey
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
1. The training was relevant to
me.
1 2 3 4 5
1. 2. The training was interesting to
me.
1 2 3 4 5
3. The training added value to
me.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I can immediately apply what I
have learned.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I am confident in applying
what I have learned.
1 2 3 4 5
6. The training allowed for
practice and feedback.
1 2 3 4 5

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Due to the various types of
entities involved and their respective program schedules, it is recommended that a survey be
administered at least twice per year to ascertain the views and perspective of participants after
the implementation of the program. Specifically, the survey will measure a participant’s
satisfaction and relevance of the program (Level 1), confidence in applying what they have
learned in the workplace (Level 2), the application of they have learned in the workplace (Level
3), and their overall performance in the workplace (Level 4). The survey will contain Likert-type
questions illustrated in Table 15.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 91

Table 15
Delayed Feedback Survey
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
1. The training proved to be
relevant to me over a period of
time.
1 2 3 4 5
2. 2. I would recommend the
training.
1 2 3 4 5
3. The training proved to be
valuable to me over a period of
time.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I was able to consistently
apply what I learned.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I am still confident or more
confident in applying what I have
learned.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I am less confident in applying
what I have learned.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I have been able to
demonstrate what I have learned.
1 2 3 4 5

Data Analysis and Reporting
For all three entities (employers, universities, or Muslim community centers) data
analysis and reporting should be basic and transparent. First, the analysis should simply measure
the number of self-identified Muslim women who wear the hijab and have received information
pamphlets, job aids, and who have participated in job interviewing demonstrations. Second, the
number of self-reported Muslim women who wear the hijab that have participated in the testing
of knowledge items or mock interviews should be reported. Third, the median scoring of the
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 92

respective testing or mock interviews should also be shared. Finally, both short-term and
delayed-term survey results should also be disseminated.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 93

Appendix L: Limitations and Delimitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study:
• snowball sampling does not guarantee the representativeness of the sample;
• snowball sampling could have resulted in sampling bias;
• data regarding the actual number of hijab-wearing women in the United States were
lacking;
• participants were presumed to be literate; and
• lack of funding or resources for the study could have limited the sample size.
The delimitations include the designation of this study as a quantitative study. Although
open-ended questions were asked in the survey, the decision was made to analyze and report the
quantitative findings with the intention of reporting the qualitative components in a future study.

WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 94

Appendix M: Validity and Reliability
Validity of a research instrument assesses whether it measures the constructs that it is
intended to measure (Creswell, 2014; Salkind, 2017). As such, I intend to maintain the validity,
content validity specifically, by ensuring that all facets of this study honored the purpose of the
project and its research questions. First, I will ensure that the population evaluated consists of
Muslim women who wear the hijab in the United States and meets all other criteria to participate
in this study. Second, the sample selected will reflect the population being evaluated. Lastly, I
will continuously monitor and mitigate threats of validity that could be present in the quantitative
aspect of this study. Specifically, threats of internal validity (i.e., selection, testing,
instrumentation, etc.), threats of external validity (i.e., narrow characteristics of participants), and
threats of statistical conclusion validity (i.e., inaccurate inferences of data or violation of
statistical assumptions) (Creswell, 2014).
Reliability of a research instrument assesses whether it can yield consistent results at
different periods of time (Salkind, 2017). The type of reliability that is germane to this study is
internal consistency reliability, which assesses the consistency of findings of a study (Salkind,
2017). This study will utilize Cronbach’s alpha, which measures internal consistency by
analyzing any variabilities vis-à-vis the quantitative findings of this study (Salkind, 2017).
As mentioned previously, to maintain rigor and ensure confidence in this study’s sample,
all participants will be thoroughly vetted prior to being given access to the study’s survey to
ensure that they meet the general criteria of this study (Dusek, Yurova, & Ruppel, 2015). Lastly,
response bias will be analyzed and determined through a wave analysis, in which I will examine
the returns of the survey on a weekly basis to assess if the average responses change (Creswell,
2014).
WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE HIJAB 95

Appendix N: Ethics
The ethical responsibilities that I must be cognizant of with respect to involving human
subjects in my research can be enumerated into four principles (Glesne, 2011). The four
principles that I must follow vis-à-vis human research subjects are: providing full disclosure (i.e.,
informed consent), allowing withdrawal from the study with no caveats, eliminating all
unnecessary risks (i.e., doing no harm), and ensuring that the benefits outweigh all potential risks
(Glesne, 2011). Due to the nature of my study, the current political climate (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) and cultural dynamics (Glesne, 2011) could result in unanticipated effects on the
participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, I will strictly adhere to the University of
Southern California’s Institutional Review Board requirements for informed consent. I also
intend on doing the following: assure the participants that their participation will remain
confidential, ensure that data that will be securely stored to the best of my ability, and obtain
explicit permission to record the interviews.
Given the purpose of my study, I will not have a relationship with the participants’
employers, and it is unlikely that they will feel pressured to partake in the study (Rubin & Rubin,
2012). However, it is imperative that I explicitly inform them of my role as a researcher, that
their participation is voluntary, and that there are no incentives to participate in the study
(Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
As a member of the Muslim community, it is reasonable for people to assume that my
assumptions and biases could impact my research given the current political and cultural
disposition toward Muslim women who wear the hijab (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, I
intend on mitigating these potential concerns by ensuring that I follow all ethical guidelines that
has been presented to us as students in this doctoral program.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

Racism, discrimination and stereotypes: the cost of success for Black women in the workplace

PDF

Enduring in silence: understanding the intersecting challenges of women living with multiple sclerosis in the workplace

PDF

Identifying the environmental and systemic factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women leaders in the male-dominated information technology sector in the United States

PDF

Building the leadership capacity of women in K-12 education: successful strategies that create the next generation of women school and district leaders

PDF

Double jeopardy: the influence of prevalent race and gender bias on women of color executive leadership promotions

Asset Metadata

Creator Hasan, Ed (author)

Core Title Workplace religious discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the hijab

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/26/2018

Defense Date 03/19/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag ACLU,American Civil Liberties Union,CAIR,Civil Rights Act of 1964,Council on American‐Islamic Relations,discrimination against Muslim women,Ed Hasan,EEOC,employee discrimination,employment laws,Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,gaps in Title VII,gender discrimination,gender discrimination in the workplace,hijab,hijabi,hijab‐wearing women,human resource,human resources,Islam,Muslim females,Muslim women,Muslim women who wear the hijab,Muslims,OAI-PMH Harvest,reasonable accommodation,religious discrimination in the United States,Religious Freedom and Restoration Act,religious workplace discrimination,SHRM,Society for Human Resource Management,Title VII,United States workforce,Women,women and discrimination in the workplace,workplace discrimination,workplace religious discrimination,workplace religious discrimination and the hijab,workplace religious discrimination toward Muslim women who wear the hijab,workplace rights

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Ahmadi, Shafiqa (committee member), Ezzeldine, Omar (committee member)

Creator Email ed@edhasan.com,ehasan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-495401

Unique identifier UC11267018

Identifier etd-HasanEd-6270.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-495401 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HasanEd-6270.pdf

Dmrecord 495401

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hasan, Ed

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA