8th Circuit: Title VII Failure To Accommodate Does Not Equal Retaliation

In EEOC v. North Memorial Health Care, (8th Cir., Nov. 13, 2018), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, interpreted Title VII's unlawful retaliation provision. At issue is the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) that makes it illegal to discriminate against an employee or applicant for employment because the person "has opposed" an employer's discriminatory practices. In the case, an employment offer to a Seventh Day Adventist registered nurse was withdrawn because she was unable to work Friday night shifts and an accommodation was not feasible.  The majority held that merely requesting religious accommodation is not necessarily an expression of opposition to a denial of the accommodation.  Judge Grasz dissenting explained the opposing views:

I do share the Court’s apparent concern that Title VII not be read so that meritless discrimination claims based on a failure to accommodate may simply be repackaged and resurrected as retaliation claims. In my view, however, it is the causation element that properly does the work of weeding out such claims, not the opposition requirement. Where an employer, after denying an accommodation request that it is not legally obligated to grant, refuses to hire an applicant because the applicant cannot or will not perform the job without accommodation, the employer can show the legitimacy of the action.... Unlike such repackaged claims, the claim here should survive because there is evidence of retaliation, namely the evidence that Sure-Ondara told North Memorial she would work the job even without the accommodation and would show up for work if she could not find a replacement. Despite her willingness to work without accommodation, North Memorial withdrew its job offer, making it reasonable for a fact-finder to infer that it did so because she had requested an accommodation.

Restaurant Settles EEOC Suit On Dress Code Accommodation

The EEOC last week announced the settlement of a religious discrimination suit it had filed against the operators of a Flowood, Mississippi restaurant, Georgia Blue.  The restaurant agreed to pay $25,000 to settle a complaint by an Apostolic Pentecostal waitress who objected to the company's dress code that required servers to wear blue jean pants.  The company had refused to accommodate her religious beliefs that women should only wear skirts or dresses. The settlement also requires the company to change its employee policies and to provide non-discrimination training to managers.

Churches Sue For Exemptions From City's Employment Non-Discrimination Ordinance

A Texas-based organization of churches has filed suit against the city of Austin claiming that the city's non-discrimination ordinance violates member churches' federal and state constitutional rights and Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint (full text) in U.S. Pastor Council v. City of Austin, (WD TX, filed 10/6/2018), contends that the Austin ordinance which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity infringes the rights of churches that will not hire women as senior pastors or which will not hire practicing homosexuals or transgendered individuals for any church position.  The only religious exemptions set out in the Austin ordinance are for religious institutions' hiring on the basis of religion.  The complaint declares that objecting churches "rely on the Bible rather than modern-day cultural fads for religious and moral guidance." KXAN News reports on the decision.

Court Rejects EEOC's "Pattern or Practice" Claims Against Meat Packer

In EEOC v. JBS USAA, LLC, (D CO, Sept. 24, 2018), a Colorado federal district court in a 95-page opinion issued after a 16-day trial dismissed the EEOC's claims that JBS Swift & Co. meat packers engaged in pattern and practice of discrimination against Muslim employees. The suit claimed that the company had refused to reasonably accommodate Muslim employees' needs during Ramadan to pray and break their fast; that employees were disciplined on the basis of religion, national origin and race; and that JBS retaliated against a group of black, Muslim, Somali employees for opposing discrimination during Ramadan. In rejecting the reasonable accommodation claim, the court said in part:

The EEOC presented numerous instances of employees given verbal or written warnings for “unauthorized breaks” that other evidence indicated may have been in relation to prayer.... But, in spite of JBS’s progressive discipline policy, there was no evidence that any such reprimanded employees were ultimately suspended or terminated as a result of such verbal or written warnings.

Therefore, lacking evidence that any employee suffered a detriment to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion” in relation to discipline imposed for unscheduled prayer breaks, the Court concludes that the EEOC has failed to prove its claim that JBS’s policy constituted an unlawful pattern or practice of discrimination.

The discriminatory discipline and retaliation claims were rejected on other grounds.

Cert Filed In Title VII Sabbath Accommodation Case

Last week, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Patterson v. Walgreen Co. (cert. filed 9/14/2018).  In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Walgreens had offered reasonable accommodations under Title VII for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. The employee, a training instructor, was fired in the aftermath of his refusal to conduct an emergency training session on a Saturday. (See prior posting.)  The Seventh Day Adventist Church issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Appeals Court Remands Employment Discrimination Claim Against NJ Corrections Department

In Roseus v. State of New Jersey, (NJ App., Sept. 10, 2018), a New Jersey state appeals court remanded to the trial court a suit in which plaintiff claimed the Department of Corrections (DOC) violated the state's Law Against Discrimination when it dismissed him from a training program for corrections officers. DOC refused to grant  Marven Roseus, who for religious reasons does not shave his face or head, a religious accommodation to depart from the Department's grooming rules. The appeals court held:

[D]efendants moved for dismissal... Consequently, there is no record.... [W]e do not have a record of the DOC's actual grooming policy, the rationale for that policy, whether the DOC has granted accommodations to others from its grooming policy, whether the DOC engaged in a "bona fide effort" to accommodate plaintiff, and whether an accommodation to plaintiff would impose an "undue hardship" on the DOC. 

Amish Couple Sue Seeking Exemption From Photo Requirement To Get Permanent U.S. Residency

AP reports that an Old Order Amish couple filed suit yesterday in an Indiana federal district court challenging the federal government's refusal to grant permanent residency to the wife--a Canadian-- unless the husband and wife furnish photos of themselves.  The couple has refused because of their religious belief that photos are graven images prohibited by the Second Commandment. The couple wed in 2014 after the husband's first wife died. They live with their 13 children in an Amish farming community in southern Indiana. They claim that the government's refusal to accommodate their religious beliefs violate their 1st and 5th Amendment rights. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Federal Contract Compliance Office Issues Directive On Religious Rights of Contractors

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs last week issued Directive 2018-03 (Aug. 10, 2018) in order to maximize free exercise rights of federal contractors and subcontractors. OFCCP is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination and equal opportunity provisions applicable to contractors and subcontractors.  The Directive says in part:

Recent court decisions have addressed the broad freedoms and anti-discrimination protections that must be afforded religion-exercising organizations and individuals under the United States Constitution and federal law. See, e.g., Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1731 (2018) (government violates the Free Exercise clause when its decisions are based on hostility to religion or a religious viewpoint); Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2022 (2017) (government violates the Free Exercise clause when it conditions a generally available public benefit on an entity’s giving up its religious character, unless that condition withstands the strictest scrutiny); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2775 (2014) (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to federal regulation of the activities of for-profit closely held corporations)....

OFCCP staff are instructed to take these legal developments into account in all their relevant activities, including when providing compliance assistance, processing complaints, and enforcing the requirements of E.0. 11246....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release discussing the Directive. Think Progress reports on the Directive.

11th Circuit: Jehovah's Witness Truck Driver Was Offered Reasonable Accommodation

In Walker v. Indian River Transport Co., (11th Cir., July 27, 2018), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Title VII claims brought by a Jehovah's Witness truck driver who resigned his job alleging a failure to accommodate his need to regularly attend Sunday church services. The milk route to which Bobby Walker, Jr. was assigned required flexibility that included Sunday availability.  The court concluded that Walker's employer, Indian River Transport, offered Walker a reasonable accommodation by offering him other local routes, even though they paid less than the milk route.  The court also rejected Walker's retaliation claim.  Land Line reports on the decision.

Amish Get Remand For More Consideration of Religious Freedom Defenses In Permit Case

In Sugar Grove Township v. Byler, (PA Commnwlth. Ct., July 20, 2018), a 7-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court remanded to the trial court a complaint against a member of the Old Order Amish who, it was contended, failed to obtain required permits under the Township's Privy Ordinance, and violated the Sewage Facilities Act and the Uniform Construction Code.  The trial court concluded that community safety concerns override religious objections. The appeals court said:

The trial court substantiates this conclusion by vaguely referencing testimony of an environmental hazard in the nature of high levels of E. coli bacteria being found in the area, without any explanation of how Appellant’s purported violations contributed to or exacerbated this hazard. Moreover, the trial court ignores additional protections provided by the Religious Freedom Protection Act....

The matter is remanded to the trial court to issue a new opinion considering the issue of the religious freedom protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as well as the Religious Freedom Protection Act.

AP reports on the decision.

No Free Exercise Violation In Refusal To Adjourn Trial For Defendant's Holy Day

In an opinion which sets out few of the facts involved, a New York state appeals court held that the Free Exercise rights of a robbery defendant were not infringed when the trial court denied his request to adjourn court proceedings from Thursday until Monday to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices.  The unanimous decision or the Appellate Division is People v. Webb, (NY App., July 18, 2018).

EEOC Wins Settlement On Behalf of Hebrew Pentecostal Employee

The EEOC announced on Wednesday that it has won a settlement in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against J.C. Witherspoon, a South Carolina-based logging company. The company fired a Hebrew Pentecostal employee because he refused to work on Saturday, his Sabbath.  The company will pay $53,000 in damages and enter a 2-year consent decree under it will make policy changes and provide training to management employees.

Father Sues Over Daycare's Policy That Disallowed Religious Jewelry

The New York Daily News reports on a lawsuit filed this week in a New York state trial court against a day care center over its policy barring students, for safety reasons, from wearing jewelry.  The school refused to allow Dmitriy Goldin's then 4-year old son to wear his Star of David necklace. According to the paper, the boy's father, who immigrated to the U.S. from Russia in 1991 because of religious persecution, argues that the daycare was required to make an exception to it no-jewelry policy to accommodate his religious beliefs:

Goldin, whose grandfather died fighting Germany in World War II, and who lost about 40 family members in the Holocaust, said he is not strict about Judaism – but wearing the Jewish star is how he and his family express their faith.

“In Russia, if you wore a Star of David back in the day, you could maybe walk 10, 15 minutes with weird looks before they’d spit on us, or cursed us out, or whatever,” he said. “In America, being able to wear the Star of David – it’s freedom.”

Muslim Woman Sues Under Title VII Over Failure To Accommodate Hijab

A lawsuit was filed in a Virginia federal district court last week against a Hanover, Virginia health care facility by a Muslim woman whose employment as a nursing assistant was terminated because she insisted on wearing a hijab. The complaint (full text) in Brooks v. Medical Facilities of America, Inc., (ED VA, filed 5/31/2018) contends that the employer's refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on the lawsuit.

Therapist Sues After Dismissal For Refusing To Counsel Gay Couple

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed last week in Michigan federal district court by a licensed clinical social worker against her former employer, HealthSource Saginaw.  The complaint (full text) in Lorentzen v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc., (ED MI, filed 5/11/2018) alleges that Kathleen Lorentzen was informed that she would be terminated, and was subjected to demeaning, threatening and abusive actions, after she insisted on referring a same-sex couple to a different therapist for marriage counseling. Lorentzen says that continuing to counsel the couple would violate her Catholic religious beliefs. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and of various state law provisions. Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

EEOC Sues Company Over Refusal To Accommodate Muslim Women Employees' Dress Requirements

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against Washington-state based Aviation Port Services, a  provider of support services to airlines.  The company fired six Muslim female passenger service agents at its Boston location for violating a requirement that they wear company-provided pants or knee-length skirts at work. It refused to accommodate the women's religious obligation to wear long skirts instead.

Suit Over "In Christ" E-Mail Signature Moves Ahead

In Mial v. Foxhoven, (ND IA, April 4, 2018), an Iowa federal district court refused to dismiss Title VII and state religious discrimination claims brought by Michael Mial who had been fired from his position as a security specialist in the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) of the Iowa Department of Human Services.  Mial's dismissal resulted from his insistence on using the valediction "In Christ" on e-mails he sent on his CCUSO e-mail account, in violation of a rule against personal messages in e-mail signatures.  The court found that Mial's signature message was part of his "religious belief that he must proclaim his faith in everything he does." The court rejected CCUSO's claim that  Establishment Clause concerns justified its refusal to offer Mial a reasonable accommodation, saying in part:

there is scant evidence that Mial’s use of “In Christ” at the end of work-related email messages (such as in various requests for shift changes or time off) would lead the public to assume CCUSO was endorsing a religion. 

The court concluded:

[D]efendants have not shown as a matter of law that the Establishment Clause prevented them from offering an accommodation. Nor have they demonstrated, as a matter of law, that Mial’s email valediction caused any disruption in the workplace or violated any neutral, generally applicable rules or procedures. Of course, the jury could decide that Mial’s use of the valediction violated neutral policies about professional conduct and following supervisory directives. If so, then a duty to accommodate may not apply. However, I am not able to reach such a conclusion as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be denied.

11th Circuit: Employer Offered Reasonable Accommodation

In Patterson v. Walgreen Co., (11th Cir., March 9, 2018), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a suit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation, held that Walgreens had offered reasonable accommodations for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. The employee, a training instructor, was fired in the aftermath of his refusal to conduct an emergency training session on a Saturday.  The court said in part:

To comply with Title VII, an employer is not required to offer a choice of several accommodations or to prove that the employee’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship; instead, the employer must show only “that the employee was offered a reasonable accommodation, ‘regardless of whether that accommodation is one which the employee suggested.’” ...

Walgreens decided to terminate his employment only after he failed to conduct the emergency training session, insisted that Walgreens guarantee that he would never have to work on his Sabbath, and refused to consider other employment options within the company without such a guarantee.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Justice Department Sues Over County Nursing Home's Procedure For Obtaining Flu Shot Exemption

The Justice Department announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination suit against a Wisconsin county because of the religious accommodation policy of a county-owned nursing home.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, (ED WI, filed 3/6/2018), challenges the nursing home's requirement that a religious exemption for staff from the requirement to obtain a flu shot is available only if the staff member furnishes a letter from his or her clergy leader.  Nursing assistant Barnell Williams sought a religious exemption, but was not affiliated with any church or organized religion.  She based her religious objection on her own interpretation of the Bible.  She agreed to receive a flu shot in order to preserve her job.  However, according to the complaint:

Williams suffered severe emotional distress from receiving the flu shot in violation of her religious beliefs, including withdrawing from work and her personal life, suffering from sleep problems, anxiety, and fear of “going to Hell” because she had disobeyed the Bible by receiving the shot. These deep emotional problems stemming from having to take the flu shot have plagued Williams to the present. 

EEOC Sues Over Accommodation For Religious Objection To Flu Vaccine

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the Owossso, Michigan based Memorial Healthcare.  The company revoked its job offer to Yvonne Bair to work as a medical transcriptionist after she objected on religious grounds to receiving an influenza shot or spray immunization.  Memorial refused her suggested accommodation of allowing her to wear a mask, even though company policy allowed masks as an alternative for those who cannot take a vaccine for other reasons.  MarketWatch reports on the lawsuit.