Personal dressing and the general appearance of an individual depicts their lifestyle socially, politically, and religiously. However, some of the personal appearances and dressing may collide with the working environment policies leading to conflicts at the workplace. The Kimberly Webb case is one of the controversial cases on wearing religious attire at work. The police force argues that wearing religious attire does not conform to the uniformity of all service officers. The policing sector requires equality in all aspects, including dress codes, hence providing uniforms according to the various departments.
Regarding Kimberly’s case, the court refused her appeal based on the undue burden that the difference in the dressing may bring to the policing sector. Undue burden refers to the extra expenses or destruction due to a particular practice, such as jeopardizing individuals’ safety or insufficient resources to accommodate the staff. The judge’s and city’s concerns may be for the benefit of the officers since religious attire such as hijabs can cause distraction during operation, posing a danger to the individual and the general public.
Uniformity is also essential in identifying authority and also promotes order and discipline in the policing sector. Despite the concern for safety and uniformity, I disagree with the city and judge’s verdict because police officers should be allowed to dress according to specific religions as part of their culture and identity. All careers should consider individuals’ religious beliefs and their various practices for inclusivity and a sense of belonging to society. Policies limiting religious dressing in the police sector prevent millions of individuals from achieving their goals in joining the police force because they are afraid of the limitations to their religious practices.