"It’s like the U.N. on the floor," says Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana, in describing the operation’s workforce, which consists of Burmese, Indian, Pakistani and African workers. "A Japanese employer learned how to adjust."

Souder wishes other businesses would make similar efforts to accommodate the spiritual beliefs of their workers. Instead, he’s concerned that the Supreme Court interpretation of an existing workplace religious freedom law enables companies to, for example, deny a Jewish worker the right to take off a holy day and force a pharmacist to dispense morning-after pills even when doing so conflicts with her religion.

Under a bill that Souder has written, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, companies would have to prove that allowing religious expression on the job entails significant difficulty or expense.

In 1972, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect religious observances at work unless they place an "undue hardship" on employers. But a subsequent Supreme Court ruling effectively allows corporations to curtail religion in the office based on minimal cost or inconvenience, according to Souder.

Companies "want to deprive the rights of Christians, devout Jews and Muslims for business flexibility," Souder says. Employers should have to show that there is a material effect on their business before they could interfere with religious practices at work, he contends.

Souder is an evangelical Christian whose family owns a furniture business in his district. He stresses that he is not trying to cudgel the private sector. "I want to find a reasonable way to work through this," he says.

He cited a worker placing a Bible on her desk as an appropriate religious observance. However, a company could take action if she posts a Bible verse that can be interpreted as anti-homosexual shortly after a business announces a new benefits policy for same-sex couples.

Employers are wary of the bill as religious expression in the workplace proliferates and permutates. Souder’s bill "moves the line in terms of what a reasonable accommodation is," says Michael Eastman, director of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It’s unclear where it moves it to. When you move the line, the court will determine where the line is."

Besides, Eastman says, employers already have to meet a high bar in terms of compliance. If the law really did let employers get away with suppressing religious expression at work with no demonstration of hardship, companies wouldn’t lose court cases, he says.

A former Dell human resources executive says that balance can be achieved.

"Fundamentally, work should not hinder the practice of your religion, but at the same time your religion should not hinder the accomplishment of the job your employer hired you to do," says Amy Baker, author of the book Succeed at Work Without Sidetracking Your Faith. "As managers, we need to lead by example and not look for excuses to be offended by someone we disagree with in matters of religion."

Although it’s unlikely to pass this year, Souder’s bill, which has 18 bipartisan co-sponsors, scored a breakthrough in November when it was given a hearing on Capitol Hill. The increase in multiculturalism--and deepening spiritual observance--in the United States will continue to propel the issue.

—Mark Schoeff Jr.