Jewish Employee's Discrimination Claim Against New York City Dismissed

In Brodt v. City of New York, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29229 (SD NY, March 6, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by a former employee of the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications that he was denied a permanent position and eventually fired under the pretext of budget limitations when in fact the actions were based on his being an observant Jew. The court held that the facts alleged do not plausibly show discriminatory animus or a hostile work environment. According to the court, the comments by his supervisor that plaintiff should pray for him and his comments about plaintiff's nine children were simple teasing or isolated incidents. His supervisor's constantly rubbing plaintiff's yarmulke was merely annoying conduct.

EEOC Releases Guidance On Religious Garb and Grooming Accommodation

The EEOC announced yesterday the release of two related technical assistance publications on the law regarding religious dress and grooming in the workplace. A Question and Answer document titled Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities is a guide (including examples) to when and how employers must accommodate employees' religiously-based requests on clothing, religious dress, head coverings, hair style and beards. The related Fact Sheet summarizes the basic requirements of Title VII.

The new guidance comes as the Department of Justice announced the filing of a federal lawsuit against the Philadelphia (PA) school district charging it with discrimination against a Muslim school police officer who was reprimanded for wearing a beard in violation of an October 2010 policy change that prevents school police and security officers from wearing beards longer than one-quarter inch. The employee, Siddiq Abu-Bakr, has worn a longer beard for the 27 years he has worked for the school district.

Muslim County Worker Wins $1.2 Million In Employment Discrimination Suit

The Detroit Free Press reports that after a two-week employment discrimination trial, a federal court jury in Michigan on Thursday awarded nearly $1.2 million to Ypsilanti (MI) resident Ali Aboubaker, a Muslim.  Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen originally from Tunisia who holds four advanced degrees, claims that his firing from his maintenance engineer job with Washtenaw County was based on ethnic, religious and racial discrimination.  Aboubaker, who worked for the county for 17 years, says he was constantly subjected to racial and ethnic taunts-- especially focusing on his long beard-- and management did nothing about it. His suit also challenged a promotion he did not receive.

Lesbian Employee Forced To Watch Religious Anti-Gay Video Loses Claim For Harassment

As reported by the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, a Sonoma County, California trial court yesterday issued a tentative decision (full text) in White v. GC Micro Corp., (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 25, 2014).  Plaintiff in the case, a lesbian in a committed domestic partnership, was recruited by GC Micro's CEO to move from Colorado to California to work for the company. She was fired after 5 months.  The supervisor in charge of training sales staff made derogatory remarks about plaintiff's sexual orientation and lifestyle, and required her to watch a video featuring a minister who had "outspoken disdain for homosexuality" and believed "that all homosexuals are sinners." However, according to the court, plaintiff "does not allege that the video contained any inappropriate material." The court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with a sexual orientation discrimination claim and a fraud claim against the company, but dismissed with leave to amend the claims against the CEO and supervisor personally. The court dismissed completely plaintiff's claim for harassment.

Pharmacist Sues After His Firing For Refusing To Sell "Morning After" Contraceptives

Thomas More Society announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf a a pharmacist who was fired by from his position at a Jamestown, Tennessee Walgreen's after he told management he would not participate in the sale of Plan B oral contraceptives.  The complaint (full text) in Hall v. Walgreen Company, (MD TN, filed 2/11/2014), alleges that the company previously permitted pharmacist Phillip Hall to refer customers seeking to purchase Plan B to another pharmacist in the store as a way of accommodating Hall's religious objections to selling the emergency contraceptive which he believes is an abortifacient. However the store changed its policy once it began to stock a new over-the-counter version of Plan B.  A factor in Hall's firing apparently was also his action in personally purchasing and disposing of the store's first shipment of 6 boxes of the over-the-counter version as a way to prevent its being available. The complaint alleges that Hall's firing violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the free exercise clause of the Tennessee constitution and Tennessee's Right to Refuse statute that protects anyone from being required to participate in the performance of an abortion.

In Fragmented Decision, Washington Supreme Court Finds Discrimination Exemption For Religious Non-Profits Unconstitutional As Applied

The Washington state Supreme Court yesterday answered certified questions from a federal district court in a fragmented decision.  In  Ockletree v. Franciscan Health System, (SA Sup. Ct., Feb. 6, 2014), the state's high court responded to two questions of state constitutional law: (1) Does the exclusion in the Washington Law Against Discrimination for religious non-profit organizations violate the state constitution's equal privileges and immunities clause or its free exercise clause. (2) If not, is the exclusion unconstitutional when applied to prevent a suit by an employee who claims discrimination unrelated to any religious purpose, practice or activity of defendant.  The suit involved a claim of discrimination on the basis of race and disability in the firing of a security guard by a Catholic hospital.

In the lead opinion, 4 justices answered the first certified question in the negative, concluding that "WLAD's definition of 'employe'... does not involve a privilege or immunity" and "does not involve the appropriation of money or application of property, and therefore does not fall within the prohibition of article I, section 11 's establishment clause."

Dissenting, 4 justices disagreed, saying: "WLAD grants religious nonprofits immunity from a right of action that belongs to all Washington citizens by virtue of citizenship. Under the privileges and immunities clause, the legislature cannot grant such immunity to one class of corporations unless there are reasonable grounds for excluding others. Because WLAD grants immunity from discrimination claims that are unrelated to the employer's religious beliefs, it is not necessary to alleviate a concrete and substantial burden on religious exercise."

In a separate opinion, Justice Wiggins provided a 5th vote for answering the first certified question in the negative, concluding that the exclusion is not unconstitutional on its face.  However he also provided a fifth vote for answering the second certified question in the affirmative, but only after insisting that the second certified question needs to be reframed, saying:

The original second certified question improperly focused on whether the employer discriminated on religious grounds, which requires courts to engage in excessive entanglement with religious doctrines and practices. Washington courts would be asked to determine what constitutes a particular religion's purpose, practice, and activity and determine whether the reason for the discrimination is related. This is an intrusive inquiry into religious doctrine. 

When the exemption is applied to a person whose job qualifications and responsibilities are unrelated to religion, there is no reasonable ground for distinguishing between a religious organization and a purely secular organization. Therefore, I agree with the dissent that the exemption is invalid when applied to an employee like Ockletree, assuming that there is no relationship between his duties and religion or religious practices.

(See prior related posting.) AP reports on the decision.