Court Refuses To Dismiss EEOC's Suit Against Meat Plant Alleging Failure To Accommodate Muslim Employees

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. JBS USA, LLC, (D CO, July 17, 2015), a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought by the EEOC charging that a Swift & Co. beef processing plant in Colorado failed to reasonably accommodate Muslim employees' need to leave the production line to pray at or near sundown. A large number of Muslim employees were terminated in 2008 after they and the company could not reach agreement for accommodations during Ramadan. The suit also charged a pattern of retaliation, discriminatory discipline and discharge.The EEOC previously lost a similar suit involving the same company's processing plant in Nebraska. The court held that the EEOC is not collaterally estopped by that case. Moving to the substantive issues, the court concluded that genuine issues of material fact remain both as to the reasonableness of the company's and the EEOC's proposed accommodations and as to whether the EEOC's proposal imposes an undue hardship on the company. Similarly disputes of fact remain as to the EEOC's discrimination and retaliation claims-- including issues of whether a one-time layoff of numerous employees amounts to a pattern or practice of discrimination. An EEOC press release summarizes the decision which is discussed at greater length at Workplace Class Action Blog.

EEOC Holds That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Covered Under Title VII

In a July 15 decision (full text), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reversed and remanded the Federal Aviation Administration's rejection of an employment discrimination complaint by an FAA employee who claimed he was denied a promotion because he is gay.  In a precedent setting opinion, the EEOC held that:

allegations of discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex within the meaning of Title VII.

In reaching its conclusion, the EEOC drew analogies to cases in which courts have held that discrimination on the basis of an employee's association with persons of another race amounts to racial discrimination. It added that sexual orientation discrimination is necessarily based on gender stereotypes. The EEOC also rejected the argument that unsuccessful efforts to obtain passage of legislation in Congress explicitly adding sexual orientation to Title VII should lead it to reject the discrimination claim here. The Washington Blade and Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy have more on the decision.

Meanwhile the EEOC features a posting on its website titled What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers. 

EEOC Files One, Settles One, Religious Discrimination Suit

The EEOC yesterday filed a lawsuit against UPS, the nation's largest parcel delivery service charging religious discrimination.  According to the EEOC press release:

United Parcel Service, Inc. prohibits male employees in customer contact or supervisory positions from wearing beards or growing their hair below collar length. According to EEOC's complaint, since at least 2004, UPS has failed to hire or promote individuals whose religious practices conflict with its appearance policy and has failed to provide religious accommodations to its appearance policy at facilities throughout the United States.

Also yesterday, the EEOC announced the settlement of a lawsuit brought against a Dunkin' Donut franchisee in Asheville, North Carolina. The company's plant manager offered a donut maker position to Darrell Littrell, a Seventh-Day Adventist, but then withdrew the offer when Littrell told the manager that he could not begin work on Friday afternoon because it conflicted with his Sabbath. Under the settlement, the company will pay Littrell $22,000 in damages, and will enter a 5-year consent decree barring religious discrimination and requiring policy changes, employee training and reporting.

Suit Alleges Discrimination Against Same-Sex Spouse Constitutes "Sex" Discrimination

Following the Supreme Court's recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States, many commentators noted that same-sex couples may still face discrimination because sexual orientation discrimination is not explicitly prohibited under federal law nor under the law of a number of states.  Yesterday in a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, a Wal-Mart employee is seeking a ruling that discrimination against a same-sex spouse is discrimination on the basis of "sex", a classification that is covered by state and federal anti-discrimination laws. At issue is Wal-Mart's policy of denying spousal health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of eligible employees.  If the theory is successful, it could lay the groundwork for public accommodation suits, as well as employment discrimination ones.

The complaint (full text) in Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (D MA, filed 7/14/2015), alleges that the EEOC issued a right to sue letter, finding that the refusal to add plaintiff's same-sex spouse to her health insurance policy constituted discrimination on the basis of sex since such coverage would have been provided if she were married to a man rather than another woman. The suit alleges that denial of benefits violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law because benefits would have been provided if plaintiff were married to someone of the opposite sex or if she were a different sex than her spouse. National Law Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the 10th Circuit's holding on when employers must offer a reasonable accommodation for an employee's religious practices.  The 10th Circuit had held that Abercrombie & Fitch did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it failed to reasonably accommodate Samantha Elauf's need to wear a headscarf because Elauf had not informed the company that she wore the hijab for religious reasons and would need an accommodation. (See prior posting.)  In an opinion by Justice Scalia, 7 justices held:

Motive and knowledge are separate concepts. An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.

Thus, the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions....

A request for accommodation, or the employer’s certainty that the practice exists, may make it easier to infer motive, but is not a necessary condition of liability.

Justice Alito concurred only in the judgment, urging a different test for liability.  He concluded that Abercrombie is liable only if it had knowledge that Elauf wore her headscarf for religious reasons, but that there was sufficient evidence that Abercrombie had such knowledge that the court should not have granted summary judgment to defendants.

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that Abercrombie's actions did not amount to disparate treatment (or intentional discrimination):

Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf ’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf.... In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices. To be sure, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral Look Policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith. But that is a classic case of an alleged disparate impact.

Politico reports on the decision.

EEOC Releases 2014 Data

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday released fiscal year 2014 private sector data tables providing detailed breakdowns for the 88,778 charges of workplace discrimination filed with the agency.  During the year, the EEOC received 3549 complaints alleging religious discrimination (4% of all complaints), and it resolved 3575 religious discrimination cases.  In 65.1% of the cases resolved, the agency found no reasonable cause. 19.2% of the complaints were administratively closed.  268 cases were settled.  In cases not settled or withdrawn, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that religious discrimination occurred in 116 cases.  Successful conciliation was reached in 34 of those cases.  Settlements and conciliations of religious discrimination complaints resulted in complainants receiving $8.7 million in benefits. This does not include additional amounts that may have been recovered in litigation. Wall Street Journal reports on other data released.

Company Settles EEOC Suit; Rejected Rastafarian Applicant Gets $50K In Damages

The EEOC announced Tuesday that Mims Distributing Co., a Colorado-based beer distributor, has agreed to settle an EEOC suit filed against it on behalf of a Rastafarian applicant for employment.  Mims refused to hire Christopher Alston as a delivery driver unless he would cut his hair.  Under a consent decree, Mims will pay $50,000 in damages, adopt a formal religious accommodation policy and conduct annual anti-discrimination training.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal To Accommodate Rastafarian Employee's Beliefs

The EEOC has announced that on Tuesday it filed a federal lawsuit against Raleigh, North Carolina-based Triangle Catering, LLC for failing to accommodate a new employee's religious beliefs.  The company refused to permit Michael Reddick, Jr., a practicing Rastafarian, to wear a small cap while working as a delivery truck driver. Reddick was eventually fired for insisting on wearing the religious head covering.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a Title VII employment discrimination case.  The question presented in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC is whether and to what extent a court can enforce the EEOC’s statutorily required duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.  The transcript of the oral arguments is available from the Court's website. SCOTUSBlog's case page containing links to all the briefs in the case as well as to the 7th Circuit's opinion below is here. The Washington Post reports on the oral arguments.  While the case involves charges of gender discrimination, the result will impact religious discrimination cases as well.

Preacher Claims Health Department Job Offer Was Withdrawn Because of His Religious Views

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that a Seventh Day Adventist preacher yesterday filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that the Georgia Public Health Department rescinded a job offer it had made to him when it learned of some of his religious views.  At issue are videos of sermons by preacher Eric Walsh in which he says that homosexuality is a sin and evolution is a "religion created by Satan."   Walsh resigned from his job in California two days before Georgia rescinded the offer.  The Georgia Public Health Department says that the job offer was contingent on a background check and that its withdrawal was not related to Walsh's religious beliefs.

New EEOC Nominee Announced

Last week the White House announced that President Obama will nominate  Charlotte Burrows to fill a vacant position on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Burrows is currently Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. Among her previous positions, she was staff counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The EEOC administers federal laws barring employment discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of religion.

EEOC Sues Dunkin' Donuts Over Refusal To Hire Seventh Day Adventist

The EEOC yesterday filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against a Dunkin' Donuts franchise in Ashville, North Carolina. The company withdrew its offer to hire Darrell Littrell as a donut maker when he refused to begin work on Friday evening because of his Seventh Day Adventist feligious beliefs. The EEOC's announcement also indicated that the company was charged with failing to preserve required employment records.

New EEOC Chair Appointed

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced yesterday that President Obama has appointed EEOC vice-chair Jenny R. Yang as Chair of the EEOC. She will be the first Asian-American chair of the Commission. She replaces Jacqueline A. Berrien. The EEOC enforces federal employment anti-discrimination laws, including laws prohibiting religious discrimination.

EEOC Sues Over Food Market's Refusal To Accommodate Jehovah's Witness

The EEOC yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit against the supermarket chain Food Lion for its refusal to accommodate the religious needs of a Jehovah's Witness minister and elder employed as a meat cutter in one of the food chain's North Carolina stores.  The company originally agreed to accommodate Victaurius Bailey's request not to work on Thursday nights or Sundays so that he could attend church services and religious meetings. However when Bailey was transfered to a different store, he was fired for refusing to work on Sundays.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. On Whether EEOC's Conciliation Efforts Can Be Reviewed

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C. (Docket No. 13-1019, cert. granted 6/30/2014) (Order List.) The case is one involving alleged gender discrimination-- refusal to hire a woman as a coal miner.  The issue presented, however, will impact religious discrimination claims filed with the EEOC as well.  In the case, the 7th Circuit (full opinion) held that an employer sued by the EEOC for employment discrimination cannot raise as an affirmative defense the EEOC's failure to first engage in conciliation as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The Petition for Certiorari (full text) asserts that the 7th Circuit's decision exacerbated an already exiting conflict among circuits "over whether and how Title VII’s conciliation obligation may be enforced in court."

EEOC Sues Claiming Company Required Employees To Engage In Religious Activities

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit yesterday in a New York federal district court against Syosset, N.Y.-based United Health Programs of America and its parent corporation for forcing employees to take part in religious activities in the workplace.  According to the EEOC, since 2007 employees have been required to participate in:

group prayers, candle burning, and discussions of spiritual texts. The religious practices are part of a belief system that the defendants' family member created, called "Onionhead." Employees were told wear Onionhead buttons, pull Onionhead cards to place near their work stations and keep only dim lighting in the workplace. None of these practices was work-related. When employees opposed taking part in these religious activities or did not participate fully, they were terminated.

New York Daily News has more on the lawsuit.

EEOC Wins Settlements In 3 Religious Discrimination Cases

During the past two weeks, the EEOC announced the settlement of three religious discrimination lawsuits. Each involves damages for the individual victim(s) as well as changes in the company's anti-discrimination policies and/or its training for managers and employees:

• McDonald's Restaurants of California agreed to pay $50,000 and reinforce training in order to settle charges that it refused to permit a Muslim employee, a crew trainer, to grow a beard for religious reasons. The refusal led to his constructive discharge. (Dec. 20 EEOC press release.) 
• Two companies which operate a chain of Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in North Carolina agreed to pay $40,000, adopt a formal religious accommodation policy and conduct annual training to settle charges that it fired a female Pentecostal employee after she refused for religious reasons to comply with dress code requirements that she wear pants. (Dec. 23 EEOC press release.)
• A federal district court entered a consent decree settling charges that Dynamic Medical Services, a Florida medical and chiropractic services provider, required a number of its employees to spend at least half their work days in courses that involved  Scientology religious practices, instructed employees to attend courses at the Church of  Scientology, and told one employee to undergo a Scientology "audit." Two employees were terminated when they refused to participate.  The company agreed to pay $170,000 in damages to 8 employees or former employees, and in the future to accommodate employees who object on religious grounds to participating in religious courses or other religious work-related activities. (Dec. 23 EEOC press release.)

Consent Decree In EEOC Suit Against Car Dealership That Refused To Hire Sikh

The EEOC announced yesterday the entry of a consent decree in a suit against a New Jersey car dealership for refusing to hire a Sikh man as a sales associate because his religiously-required beard did not meet the company's dress code. The decree in EEOC v. United Galaxy Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Lexus, (D NJ), orders the dealership to pay $50,000 in damages for failing to reasonably accommodate Gurpreet Kherha's religious exercise. The decree also enjoins future discrimination, requires anti-discrimination training of staff, and posting of related information.