EEOC Obtains Settlement for Failure to Accommodate Jewish Employee's Sabbath Observance

The EEOC today announced that two related automotive hauling and logistics companies have agreed to a $65,000 settlement (plus an injunction, reporting, monitoring and employee training requirements) to settle a Title VII suit charging them with religious and racial discrimination and retaliation.  The EEOC said in part in its press release:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Wheeler subjected Charles R. Lynch, III, a Torah Observant employee at its Sheffield, Ohio, location to discrimination when they revoked his religious accommodation that would have allowed him to continue having Saturdays off to observe the Sabbath. The company also exposed Lynch, who is Israeli, to unlawful harassment that included likening him to a terrorist and mocking his religious beliefs.

Court Says States Lack Standing to Challenge EEOC's New PWFA Abortion-Accommodation Rule [CORRECTED]

In States of Tennessee et. al. v. EEOC, (ED AR, June 17, 2024), an Arkansas federal district court held that 17 states that are plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge an EEOC Final Rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  At issue is the Rule's requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodation for employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

[The states] press dual theories of injury -- sovereign harms and economic harms. The sovereign harms, the States say, are twofold: the rule will abridge their ability to regulate abortions and their interests in maintaining a pro-life message in dealing with state employees. The economic harms are the rule-related compliance costs the States say they will incur in response to potential enforcement....

The sovereign harms are not imminent because there is no credible threat of enforcement. ...

Even assuming an injury in fact, though, the States' sovereign-injury theory still fails for lack of causation and redressability. ...

Unlike in situations involving private employers, the EEOC cannot bring enforcement actions against state employers....  If an agreement isn't reached within thirty days after a charge is filed, the EEOC "shall take no further action and shall refer the case to" the Department of Justice"....

That leaves the alleged economic harms. The States don't claim any sunk costs. They only say that their compliance costs are imminent.. This economic-harm theory fails for two reasons.

First, the challenged costs-- those resulting only from rule-related compliance activities associated with illegal, elective abortions are neither concrete nor particularized. ...

Second, even assuming some concrete and particularized compliance costs related to illegal, elective abortions, these costs are not fairly traceable to any threat of enforcement....

Beyond the intense controversy surrounding abortion, there are no signs that this is a major questions case. Chevron's general rule applies.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said this was decided by a Tennessee federal district court. 

A Louisiana federal district court has just reached the opposite conclusion (see prior posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Says EEOC Exceeded Its Authority in New Rules Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

In State of Louisiana v. EEOC, (WD LA, June 17, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and two Louisiana dioceses, postponing the effectiveness of new EEOC rules under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that require employers to accommodate employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

If Congress had intended to mandate that employers accommodate elective abortions under the PWFA, it would have spoken clearly when enacting the statute, particularly given the enormous social, religious, and political importance of the abortion issue in our nation at this time (and, indeed, over the past 50 years).  The Court is therefore not persuaded, on the record before it, that Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted the EEOC the authority to interpret the scope of the PWFA in a way that imposes a nationwide mandate on both public and private employers – irrespective of applicable abortion-related state laws enacted in the wake of Dobbs – to provide workplace accommodation for the elective abortions of employees.

In this sense, EEOC’s use of its regulatory power to insert the issue of abortion into a law designed to ensure healthy pregnancies for America’s working mothers squarely implicates the “major questions doctrine” as enunciated by the Supreme Court....  The major questions doctrine applies when an “agenc[y] assert[s] highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”...

Clearly, EEOC failed to include a broad religious exception in the Final Rule, and... EEOC’s interpretation of the PWFA religious exception – inasmuch as it mirrors the religious exception in Title VII, an antidiscrimination statute – does not square with the PWFA.

See prior related posting.

Catholic Bishops Sue EEOC Over Rules Implementing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Suit was filed last month in a Louisiana federal district court by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University of America and two Louisiana Catholic dioceses challenging rules adopted in April of this year by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  The Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation for employees in connection with pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. At issue in the recent lawsuit is the EEOC's inclusion of abortion as a related medical condition. The complaint (full text) in United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (WD LA, filed 5/22/2024) alleges in part:

The PWFA is not an abortion accommodation mandate. Rather, it fills a gap in federal employment law by ensuring pregnant women receive workplace accommodations to protect their pregnancies and their preborn children. Plaintiff United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) enthusiastically supported the law’s bipartisan passage. That support reflected the PWFA’s uncontroversial and laudable purpose, which is fully consistent with the Catholic Church’s belief that all human life is imbued with innate dignity and its goal of ensuring a fairer workplace for women. But EEOC has now shoehorned a mandate that employers across the country knowingly support abortion into a statute explicitly designed to protect the health and safety of preborn babies and their mothers.  

Worse, at the same time that it expands federal law into fraught areas, EEOC also insists on nullifying the explicit religious exemption that Congress wrote into the PWFA. In the PWFA, Congress imported Title VII’s religious exemption, which expressly allows employers to make employment decisions based on sincere religious beliefs. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-5(b). Of course, since the PWFA concerns only pregnancy in the workplace, this makes clear that Congress meant to allow religious exemptions from pregnancy-accommodation claims. Yet now EEOC claims the exemption bars only religious discrimination claims—which aren’t authorized by the PWFA in the first place. That renders the exception a nullity, protecting employers from PWFA claims that don’t exist.

National Review yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

18 States Sue EEOC Over Guidance on Transgender Sexual Harassment

Eighteen states filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging an EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace issued on April 29.  The lengthy Guidance includes the following:

[S]ex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed. Harassing conduct based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault due to sexual orientation or gender identity; outing (disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); harassing conduct because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex; repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.

The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. EEOC, (ED TN, filed 5/13/2024) among other things alleges that the Guidance violates the First Amendment, saying in part:

By purporting to require employers and their employees to convey the Administration’s preferred message on controversial gender-identity preferences— for example, requiring the use of pronouns that align with an employee’s self-professed gender identity and prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with that employee’s biological sex—the Enforcement Document unconstitutionally compels and restrains speech, even if contrary to the regulated parties’ viewpoints....

Requiring that employers and their employees adhere to EEOC’s chosen gender ideology orthodoxy likewise treads on religious freedoms.  Because Title VII provides exemptions for small employers, it is not “generally applicable,” and the Enforcement Document triggers strict scrutiny under free-exercise caselaw.... EEOC’s gender-ideology-accommodation mandate impermissibly violates employers’ and employees’ free-exercise rights.... Thus, adopting the policies required by the Enforcement Document would cause Plaintiff States to violate their employee’s First Amendment rights.

Tennessee's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Christian Employers Protected from Requirement to Provide Insurance for Gender Transition Procedures

 In Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. EEOC, (D ND, March 4, 2024), a North Dakota federal district court enjoined the Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing the Affordable Care Act, and the EEOC from enforcing Title  to require the Christian Employers Alliance or its present or future members to provide their employees insurance coverage for gender transition procedures. The court said in part:

... [I]f CEA had to comply with these mandates, its members would have to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs which is an impermissible exercise under the First Amendment and RFRA. ...

While protecting the right of transgender patients to access crucial healthcare and protecting workers from sex discrimination is certainly a compelling interest, the Defendants here have done nothing more than identify a broadly formulated interest in an attempt to justify the general applicability of the government mandates....  Even if the Court were to accept the Defendants’ purpose for the mandates as a compelling interest, the Defendants failed to provide any evidence showing this policy was the only feasible means to achieve its compelling interest....

Just The News reports on the decision.

Muslim Employee Recovers $70,000 From Employer Who Refused Grooming Rule Accommodation

The EEOC announced on Wednesday that it has entered a consent decree in its lawsuit against Blackwell Security Services, Inc.  The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the company violated Title VII by failing to give an exemption from its no-beard policy to a Muslim employee who worked as a concierge in Chicago, even though granting the accommodation would have imposed no cost and not created an operating burden on Blackwell.  According to the EEOC:

To avoid losing his job, the employee complied and shaved his beard, causing him significant distress....

Under the consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Blackwell will pay $70,000 in compensation to the now-former employee. Blackwell will also provide training to relevant management employees on federal laws prohibiting religious discrimination and will report any additional complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC for the decree’s duration.

EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit Against Hospital That Refused Vaccine Exemption Settled For $50,000

The EEOC announced yesterday that Trinity Health Grand Rapids, a Michigan hospital, has agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to settle a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a job applicant whose job offer was rescinded when the applicant applied for a religious exemption to the requirement that employees receive a flu shot. The applicant had received a conditional offer for a position as business office coordinator. The consent decree also enjoins the hospital from refusing to hire applicants because of their sincerely held religious beliefs opposing taking flu vaccine, or denying religious exemptions from vaccination in the future, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. It also calls for compliance training of personnel.

EEOC Announces Settlements In 2 Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

In the last several days, the EEOC has announced settlements in two unrelated Title VII religious discrimination suits filed by the agency.  Last week the EEOC announced that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system's flu vaccine requirement. The employee, who worked primarily outside and had limited contact with the public or other staff, had been granted an exemption in 2017 and 2018, but was denied one and fired in 2019. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Children's Healthcare will also modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.

Yesterday the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc., a company that provides protective services to federal agencies, will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must wear beards. The company denied the accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a documented religious leader. The company will also institute a new religious accommodation policy.

Restaurant Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

The EEOC announced last week that a now-closed restaurant in Atlanta that was part of Landry's, a national restaurant group that continues to operate, has settled a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit through a consent decree filed in a Georgia federal district court.  The EEOC said in part:

The EEOC alleged in its suit that Del Frisco’s violated federal law by failing to accommodate an employee’s religious practices and then discharging her. The employee, a server at the restaurant, had an existing religious accommodation of not working on Tuesdays so she could attend worship services. In 2019, when New Year’s Eve fell on a Tuesday, Del Frisco’s revoked her accommodation and tried to force her to work—alleging it was mandatory for servers to work the holiday. Despite saying it was a mandatory workday, Del Frisco’s gave other servers who did not need a religious accommodation the day off....

Under the consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Del Frisco’s will pay $25,000 in monetary damages to the former employee and train its management employees on religious discrimination at approximately 30 Del Frisco’s sister restaurants.

EEOC Sues Chipotle For Manager's Harassment of Muslim Teen

 The EEOC announced that last week it filed a Title VII suit against the restaurant chain Chipotle contending that a manager at a Kansas restaurant location harassed a teenage employee for wearing a hijab. According to the EEOC:

During the summer of 2021, an assistant manager began repeatedly asking [the employee] to remove her hijab, or headscarf, pressuring her to show him her hair. Despite the teen’s rejections and complaints to management, Chipotle failed to act to stop the manager’s harassment. Chipotle’s inaction resulted in the manager escalating his abuse, ultimately grabbing and forcibly removing part of the teen’s hijab.

After the teen reported the incident, Chipotle again failed to take prompt corrective action, and she was forced to submit her two weeks’ notice. The EEOC further alleges that Chipotle retaliated against the teen by refusing to schedule her to work additional shifts unless she agreed to transfer locations, while allowing her harasser to continue working at the same location.

EEOC Sues on Behalf of Muslim Employee

 On Tuesday, the EEOC announced that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against Blackwell Security Services, Inc., a hotel and condominium staffing company, for refusing to accommodate a Muslim employee's religious practice.  According to the EEOC:

[T]he employee, who worked as a concierge in Chicago, Illinois, is a practicing Muslim who wears a beard as required by his religious beliefs. Soon after he was hired, he was told by a Blackwell supervisor that it was company policy that all employees be clean shaven. The employee requested an exemption from the policy to accommodate his religious practice. However, according to the EEOC’s complaint, Blackwell told him to shave his beard or be terminated. To avoid losing his job, the employee complied.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate For Remote-Working Emloyee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the healthcare provider United Healthcare Services for refusing to grant a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate to an employee whose duties were performed entirely remotely. The EEOC said in part:

“Neither healthcare providers nor COVID-19 vaccination requirements are excepted from Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination.”

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Accommodation from Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Arkansas-based Hank’s Furniture, Inc. for refusing to grant an employee a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate. According to the EEOC:

When the Pensacola assistant store manager requested an accommodation exempting her from the requirement due to her Christian beliefs, her store manager and immediate supervisor informed her that the company would strip her of her management position if she refused to comply with the policy, no matter the reason. Despite her verbal and written requests for a religious accommodation, which Hank’s Furniture could have honored without undue hardship, the EEOC says, the company denied her requests and terminated her employment.

Proposed Regulations Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Include Abortion as Pregnancy Related Condition

Yesterday the EEOC filed for publication in the Federal Register Proposed Rules (full text) under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The Act requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for employees and applicants arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business. "Related medical conditions" are defined by the proposed regulations as including "termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion." Anti-abortion advocacy organizations say the proposed regulations will force employers to violate their religious beliefs. (See ADF press release.)

Biden Announces Intent to Nominate Charlotte Burrows For Third Term on EEOC

Yesterday, President Biden announced his intent to nominate Charlotte A. Burrows for a third term as a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She has served as Chair of the Commission since 2021. Before her appointment to the EEOC, Burrows served as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.  Burrows' nomination must be confirmed by the Senate. The EEOC enforces federal employment anti-discrimination laws, including the ban on religious discrimination.

RFRA Requires Title VII Exemption for Business Operating on Christian Gender Beliefs

In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC, (5th Cir., June 20, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that RFRA requires an exemption from the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII for a company that operates three related health and wellness businesses on the basis of Christian beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.  The court said in part: 

RFRA requires that Braidwood ... be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC wholly fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock....

Although the Supreme Court may some day determine that preventing commercial businesses from discriminating on factors specific to sexual orientation or gender identity is such a compelling government interest that it overrides religious liberty in all cases, it has never so far held that....

Under RFRA, the government cannot rely on generalized interests but, instead, must demonstrate a compelling interest in applying its challenged rule to “the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”...

[T]he EEOC fails to carry its burden. It does not show a compelling interest in denying Braidwood, individually, an exemption. The agency does not even attempt to argue the point outside of gesturing to a generalized interest in prohibiting all forms of sex discrimination in every potential case. Moreover, even if we accepted the EEOC’s formulation of its compelling interest, refusing to exempt Braidwood, and forcing it to hire and endorse the views of employees with opposing religious and moral views is not the least restrictive means of promoting that interest.

Reuters reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal to Accommodate Christian Employee's Belief Without Back-Up from Religious Leader

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Triple Canopy, Inc., a Reston, Virginia-based company that provides protective services to federal agencies. The EEOC, alleging failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, said in part:

[D]espite the employee’s repeated explanations that he did not belong to a formal religious denomination but nonetheless held a Christian belief that men must wear beards, Triple Canopy denied his request for a religious accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a certified or documented religious leader. Additionally, Triple Canopy subjected him to intolerable work conditions that resulted in his discharge.

EEOC Sues IHOP Restaurant for Failing to Accommodate Cook's Religious Beliefs

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit in a North Carolina federal district court against a Charlotte, North Carolina IHOP restaurant operated by Suncakes, LLC.  The EEOC charged that the restaurant failed to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious exercise:

... Suncakes hired a cook ... in January 2021. At the time of hire, the employee requested and was granted a religious accommodation of not working on Sundays to honor his religious observances. After a change in management in April 2021, the new general manager expressed hostility toward the accommodation and required the employee to work on Sunday, April 25 and Sunday, May 9. After the May 9 shift, the employee told the general manager he would not be working the following Sunday. The general manager refused to allow the employee to work his next scheduled shift and fired him. The manager then made comments to other employees such as, “religion should not take precedence over [the employee’s] job”” and that the employee “thinks it is more important to go to church than to pay his bills.”

Biden Renominates Persons To Be Commissioner and General Counsel of EEOC

With the convening of the 118th Congress yesterday, President Biden resubmitted a large number of nominations that had not been acted upon by the Senate last year. Among them were the nomination of Kalpana Kotagao to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for a term expiring July 1, 2027, and Karla Ann Gilbride to be General Counsel of the EEOC for a four-year term. The EEOC enforces federal laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), age, disability or genetic information.