Muslim Waiter Alleges Religious Harassment

The New York Daily News reported Thursday on a lawsuit filed in a New York federal district court against the famous Peter Luger Steak House in Great Neck, Long Island by a Muslim waiter asserting a variety of grievances, including one of religious harassment.  The Bangladeshi-born employee, Altaf Chowdhury, alleged, among other things, that two managers tricked him into eating a pork hot dog, telling him it was chicken. Chowdhury says that after he discovered the true facts, he vomited ten times. The steak house says the claims lack merit.

Suit Accuses Author Nicholas Sparks of Discrimination Against Jewish-Quaker School Headmaster

Times of Israel reports on a lawsuit filed last week against popular author Nicholas Sparks by the fired head of The Epiphany School of Global Studies. The K-12 school in New Bern, North Carolina was founded by Sparks. The suit claims that Sparks and other members of the school's board engaged in a campaign to humiliate and defame plaintiff Saul Hillel Benjamin by displaying contempt for his Jewish heritage and Quaker faith. The Oct. 2 lawsuit was filed in North Carolina federal district court.

5th Circuit Rejects Discrimination Claim By Jehovah's Witness

In Norbach v. Woodland Village Nursing Center, Inc., (5th Cir., Augl 7, 2014), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the district court, dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination suit brought by a nursing home activities aide.  Kelsey Nobach was fired by the nursing home after she refused to pray the Rosary with a patient.  The court held that no evidence had been presented to the jury showing that the employer knew or reasonably should have known that her refusal was based on her Jehovah's Witness religious beliefs. BNA Daily Labor Report covers the decision.

California Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Officer's Religious Discrimination Claim

In Longmire v. City of Oakland, (CA App., July 28, 2014), a California appellate court upheld a trial court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit filed by a police sergeant who claimed that an 8-day suspension imposed on him was based on his superior's perception that he was a Black Muslim. Plaintiff, Derwin Longmire, had been the center of a controversy over his handling of the investigation of the murder of a prominent African-American journalist who was allegedly killed because he was writing an unfavorable story about a Black Muslim bakery. Longmire was not disciplined for that investigation, but was for his handling of ten other cases. The appeals court held that Longmire failed to show that he was perceived to be a Black Muslim or that the reasons given for his suspension were pretextual. San Jose Mercury News reports on the decision.

Microscope Technician Sues Over Firing For Creationist Research

CBS News reports on a state court lawsuit filed earlier this week by a former electron microscope technician in the Biology Department of California State University Northridge.  The complaint (full text) in Armitage v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, (CA Super. Ct., filed July  22, 2014), alleges that plaintiff Mark Armitage was terminated because of hostility to his research findings supporting the theory of creationism.  In 2012, Armitage participated in a dinosaur dig in Montana and discovered a large triceratops horn.  His microscopic examination of the horn revealed soft tissue, supporting his belief that dinosaurs roamed the planet no earlier than 4000 years ago and that the Earth is young.  Alleging religious discrimination and violation of academic freedom rights, Armitage's complaint asserts:

Plaintiff seeks to have his work published, not only as a means of career advancement, but because his work is a reflection of his religious identity.  He believes that part of the character of God is truth, and that by extension, God is the ultimate author of all truth.  Thus, making and disseminating scientific discoveries is part and parcel of how he exercises his religion.

Editor Fired For Anti-Gay Blog Post Files EEOC Religious Discrimination Claim

Yesterday, a complaint (full text) was filed with the EEOC by Bob Eschliman, former editor of the Newton (IA) Daily News.  As reported by the Des Moines Register, Eschliman was suspended and then fired by his newspaper's publisher after complaints that a posting on Eschliman's personal blog cast doubt on his ability to fairly cover issues involving gays.  The posting criticized a website-- the Queen James Bible-- that advertises a version of the Bible that edits verses relating to homosexuality to eliminate homophobic interpretations.  Eschliman, a member of the Christian Reformed Church, in his post mockingly said that "the LGBTQXYZ crowd and the Gaystapo" are attempting "to make their sinful nature right with God." Eschliman's EEOC complaint says that his post reflected his sincerely held religious beliefs, and contends:

There is no question that I was fired for holding and talking about my sincerely held religious beliefs on my personal blog during my off-duty time.... I would like to have obtained a religious accommodation for my sincerely held religious belief to share my Biblical view with the few family members and friends who read my blog. Shaw Media directly discriminated against me because of my religious beliefs and my identity as an evangelical Christian who believes in Holy Scripture and the Biblical view of marriage. Moreover, Shaw Media announced that... they would not hire or allow anyone to work at Shaw Media who holds religious beliefs similar to mine....

Conservative Christian Groups Criticize New Executive Order

Some conservative Christian groups are speaking out against the Executive Order issued yesterday by President Obama (see prior posting) which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by federal contractors, as well as by executive agencies. The Family Research Council in a press release yesterday said in part:

President Obama has ordered employers to put aside their principles, and practices in the name of political correctness. This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts.

Religious faith is not simply a matter of intellectual affirmation but of active practice. A religious organization which is denied the power to require its employees to conduct their lives in a way consistent with the teachings of their faith is an organization which is being denied the right to exercise its religion, period. People with deeply held convictions regarding the morality of certain types of sexual behavior should not be bound by the dictates of President Obama's agenda.

Daily Caller has more on the reactions of religious groups.

Suit Against Catholic Diocese By Fired Lesbian Food Bank Manager Alleges Fraud

Kansas City Star reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed by a Kansas City (MO) woman who says she was fired from her position as a pastoral associate managing a food bank for St. Francis Xavier Catholic parish after her same-sex marital relationship was mentioned in a newspaper article.  Plaintiff Colleen Simon says that priests at the parish knew of her marriage to Rev. Donna Simon, a Lutheran minister, and had no problem with it. However it is alleged that when the relationship was publicly mentioned in an article about an area of Kansas City, Bishop Robert Finn ordered her fired.  The state court lawsuit against the Diocese and Finn claims that the diocese fraudulently encouraged her to take the food bank position knowing that it had no intention of keeping its commitments to her.

Suit Challenges Clinic's Refusal To Hire Nurse Who Would Not Prescribe Hormonal Birth Control

Care 2 reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed last month which it describes as "the next phase of the birth control war."  Sara Hellwege, who has just graduated nursing school, was refused an interview for a nurse-midwife position at a a women's health center that receives federal funds when she indicated that for religious reasons she would not prescribe hormonal contraceptives to women for birth control purposes.  The complaint (full text) in Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers, (MD FL, filed 6/27/2014), contends that this refusal violates 42 USC 300a-7(d) which provides that no person may be required to participate in providing health services that violate the person's religious or moral beliefs. It also contends that it violates Florida statutes which are designed to protect health care workers' conscientious objections to contraception and abortion. An ADF press release reports on the case.

LGBT Rights Groups Withdraw Support For ENDA Over Religious Exemptions

US News reported yesterday that a number of LGBT and civil rights groups have decided to withdraw their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act  (ENDA), now believing that the religious exemption in the version that has passed the Senate (S. 815) is too broad. The shift in attitude has been prompted by increased assertion of religious beliefs as a basis for discriminating against gays and lesbians. Among the groups withdrawing their support are the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Transgender Law Center.

EEOC Sues Over Nursing Home's Ban On Hijab

The EEOC announced Monday that it filed suit last month against an Alabama nursing home for refusing to accommodate a Muslim employee's request to wear her hijab. Tracy Martin, hired as a certified nursing assistant by Shadecrest Healthcare Center filed an EEOC complaint after she was told to remove her head covering. Several weeks after the nursing home received notice of the complaint, Martin was summarily fired.

Anti-Christian Video Clips Did Not Create Hostile Work Environment

Parker v. Side By Side, Inc., (ND IL, June 27, 2014), is a suit by a former employee of a Chicago bar that caters primarily to single gay men.  Among other things, plaintiff, a non-denominational Christian, claimed religious harassment by co-workers that created a hostile work environment. The court concluded that it could not determine at the summary judgment stage whether the harassment had a religious character, or instead was political in nature, aimed at the political ideology of conservative Christians:

The line between religious and political beliefs—and, thus, the line between protected and non-protected characteristics under Title VII—is often muddy, especially in the context of social policy issues....

However the court rejected the claim that videos played at the bar amounted to religious harassment, saying:

... [T]he allegedly offensive anti-Christian video clips ... do not contribute to the alleged hostility of his work environment. Sidetrack played the video clips during “Comedy Nights,” and it obtained all or at least a vast majority of the clips from mainstream broadcasts. None of the allegedly offensive material was directed at Plaintiff. Sidetrack, moreover, is known for playing comedic and other video clips on screens around the bar. The Court must evaluate the “totality of the circumstances” ..., but it need not—and must not—abandon common sense and sensitivity to social context in evaluating the alleged hostility. Just as a reasonable professional football player would not consider his working environment to be severely or pervasively hostile “if the coach smacks him on the buttocks as he heads onto the field,”..., a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would not view mainstream video clips played as part of Sidetrack’s Comedy Night events to create or even contribute to an allegedly hostile work environment.

Volokh Conspiracy has more on the decision.

Faith Leaders Ask Obama To Include Religious Exemption In Planned LGBT Non-Discrimination Executive Order

In remarks (full text) at a June 30 White House reception celebrating LGBT Pride Month, President Obama announced that he has directed his staff to prepare two executive orders.  One will prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Another will expand the sexual orientation non-discrimination provisions applicable to federal employees to also include gender identity.

Meanwhile the Washington Post reports on a July 1 letter (full text) sent to the President by 14 clergy and faith-based organization leaders asking the President to include a religious exemption in any executive order on federal contractors and LGBT employment policy. The letter reads in part:

Without a robust religious exemption,, like the provisions in the Senate-passed ENDA, this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom....

While the nation has undergone incredible legal and social change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion on this issue in a way that respects the dignity of all parties to the best of our ability.... [A] religious exemption would simply maintain that religious organizations will not be automatically disqualified or disadvantaged in obtaining contracts because of their religious beliefs.

EEOC Wins Settlement In Religious Discrimination Suit Against Auto Dealership

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced last week that a federal district court in Chicago has entered a consent decree in a suit brought by the EEOC against a suburban Chicago auto dealership, Rizza Buick GMC Cadillac, Inc.  The suit charged that managers made offensive ethnic and religious slurs against three Arab Muslim employees, including mocking and insulting references to the Qur'an and the manner in which Muslims pray. Under the settlement, the dealership will pay a total of $100,000 in damages plus undertaking reporting and employee training to prevent future violations. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Obama Moves Toward Executive Order To End LGBT Discrimination By Federal Contractors

According to The Hill, a White House official announced yesterday that "the President has directed his staff to prepare for his signature an Executive Order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."  No specific date for signing the executive order was announced, apparently in the hope that the House of Representatives will take up the Senate-passed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would extended LGBT non-discrimination protection to all workers. However this seems unlikely in the face of opposition by House Speaker John Boehner who says that ENDA would cost jobs by creating frivolous law suits.

Court Lets Fired Catholic School Administrator Continue Discrimination Suit

LifeSite News reports that a Washington state trial court judge last week refused to dismiss an employment discrimination lawsuit against Seattle's Eastside Catholic High School filed by Mark Zmuda, its former vice principal. Zmuda was forced to resign after he married his same-sex partner. Zmuda claims that the school violated its own anti-discrimination policy, while the school says Zmuda breached the morality clause in his contract that requires him to publicly uphold the teachings of the Catholic faith.  The school had given Zmuda the option to divorce his spouse and enter a civil commitment ceremony if he wanted to keep his position.

The court rejected the school's argument that the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion protections deprived the court of jurisdiction over the dispute.  King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer wrote in part: "The Federal and Supreme Courts have made it clear that an employee can sue regardless of ministerial doctrine." Zmuda's suit alleges violation of Washington's law against discrimination, breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, violation of the consumer protection act, and tortious interference. (See prior related posting.)

Houston Passes Controversial Equal Rights Ordinance

As reported by CultureMap Houston, on Wednesday the Houston, Texas City Council by a vote of 11-6 passed the controversial Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (full text). The new law protects against discrimination in public accommodations, employment and housing on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy. A provision that would have protected transgender persons in bathroom choice was removed after particularly strong objections from conservative and religious leaders.  Religious organizations are exempted from various provisions of the Ordinance. According to MSNBC, before passage of this ordinance, Houston was the largest U.S. city without local anti-discrimination laws.  Opponents of the measure are attempting to collect the needed 17,000 signatures to put repeal of the Ordinance on the ballot in November's election.

Washington Supreme Court Says Anti-Discrimination Law Requires Reasonable Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

In Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., (WA Sup. Ct., May 22, 2014), the Washington state Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Washington's Law Against Discrimination implies a requirement that employers reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices. It went on to hold that the employees of an airport food service company stated a prima facie claim for failure to reasonably accommodate their religious dietary needs. For security reasons the employees could not bring their own food to work or leave for lunch, so the company furnished meals. However employees allege that the beef-pork meatballs served did not meet their religious requirements, and that when they informed the company it initially deceived them into eating food that violated their religious beliefs and then refused to accept any of the employees' proposed accommodations. The majority found that the employees had also adequately stated claims for disparate impact, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Justice Madsen's dissent argued that implying a cause of action for reasonable accommodation improperly encroaches on the legislature's function. Even if it is implied, it should not be applied on these facts because there was no actual or threatened adverse employment action taken against the employees.

Discriminatory Firing Claim Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Conlon v. Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA, (WD MI, April 3, 2014), a Michigan federal district court applied the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a discrimination suit brought by a former spiritual director to Intervarsity Christian Fellowship staff members. Plaintiff Alyce Conlon, who was considering divorcing her husband, was placed on leave and ultimately fired under IVCF’s Separating and Divorcing Staff Policy. She claims that she was treated differently than male staff members who divorced their spouses. The court said in part:

Plaintiff’s suggestion that the ministerial exception applies only to those cases in which a court would be required to evaluate religious doctrine “misses the point of the ministerial exception,” which is not to “safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason.” Hosana-Tabor, 132 S. Ct. at 709. Rather, the exception “ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter strictly ecclesiastical—is the church’s alone.” Id. Thus, the ministerial exception prevents a court from evaluating the employment decisions of a religious organization regardless of whether the court would be required to delve into religious doctrine.

NY Appellate Court Upholds $1.6 M Religion- Sexual Orientation Discrimination Verdict

In Salemi v. Gloria's Tribeca Inc., (NY App. Div., March 20, 2014), a New York appellate court upheld a jury verdict of $1.6 million in a suit alleging employment discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.  Plaintiff worked as chef and manager of a restaurant.  The court concluded that the jury had ample evidence to find that plaintiff's employer:

discriminated against her based on her religion and sexual orientation by, amongst other things, holding weekly prayer meetings at the restaurant ... which the staff viewed as mandatory, fearing that they would lose their jobs if they did not attend, repeatedly stating that homosexuality is "a sin," and that "gay people" were "going to go to hell" and generally subjecting her to an incessant barrage of offensive anti-homosexual invective.... Additional evidence demonstrated that ... plaintiff was retaliated against for objecting to [her employer's] offensive comments, choosing not to attend workplace prayer meetings, and refusing to fire another employee because of his sexual orientation.

In response to defendant's argument that he was expressing his religious beliefs, the court said that the jury was properly instructed that he could do so provided he did not discriminate against his employees based on religion or sexual orientation. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.