EEOC Obtains Settlement In Religious Discrimination Suit

In a press release last week, the EEOC announced that Decostar Industries, Inc., a Georgia-based auto supplier, has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the EEOC.  The company refused to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs that prevented her from working between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.  The company will pay the employee damages of $38,500 and has entered a 2-year consent decree which, among other things, requires it to adopt a new religious accommodation policy.

EEOC Wins Settlement of Religious Accommodation Lawsuit

In a January 30 press release, the EEOC announced that the logistics company  XPO Last Mile, Inc. has settled a religious discrimination suit filed by the agency.  The company will pay $94,541 in monetary relief to a job applicant whose job offer was rescinded when he informed the company that he needed to start work one day later than scheduled because of his observance of the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah.  The company also entered a 3-year consent decree preventing unlawful denial of religious accommodation to employees.

10th Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment In Title VII Suit By Seventh Day Adventists

In Tabura v. Kellogg USA, (10th Cir., Jan. 17, 2018), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment to employer Kellogg in a Title VII suit brought by Seventh Day Adventists who were seeking an accommodation for their Sabbath observance.  The court held:

Title VII required Kellogg reasonably to accommodate Plaintiffs’ religious practice, if Kellogg could do so without incurring undue hardship to its business. Whether Kellogg reasonably accommodated Plaintiffs’ Sabbath observance and, if not, whether Kellogg could do so without undue hardship, must await further proceedings.

In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected arguments that it should adopt per se rules defining reasonable accommodation, and instead emphasized that these issues must be decided on a case specific basis.  Business Insurance reports on the decision.  [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Bureau of Prisons Says Objecting Chaplains Need Not Carry Pepper Spray

A Liberty Counsel press release today reports that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons has granted accommodation requests from prison chaplains who object on religious grounds to carrying pepper spray as a potential defense in emergency situations.  Various prison Chaplains were told to carry the spray after enactment of the Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015.  Liberty Counsel sent a letter in October seeking a religious accommodation and religious exemption for chaplains.

Amicus Briefs In Masterpiece Cakeshop Now Available Online

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case will be argued before the Supreme Court on Dec. 5. Over 50 90 amicus briefs have been filed in the case. SCOTUSblog's case page has links to them, as well as to briefs of petitioner and respondent and to commentary on the case. The case pits the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against a baker who, for religious reasons, refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Bus Driver Can Move Ahead With Religious Objection To Fingerprinting

In Kaite v. Altoona Student Transportation, Inc., (WD PA, Oct. 30, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court allowed a school bus driver to proceed with her religious discrimination and retaliation claims against her employer.  A newly enacted state law required the driver to undergo a background check, including fingerprinting.  According to the court, plaintiff, a devout Christian, sought an accommodation because of her belief that fingerprinting is the "mark of the devil" which is forbidden by the Book of Revelation.  Defendant refused any accommodation and dismissed plaintiff.  Legal Intelligencer reports on the decision.

Catholic Nurse Sues Duke University Hospital Seeking Religious Accommodation

A lawsuit was filed last week against Duke University and the Duke University Health System by a Catholic emergency department nurse who claims that Duke University Hospital discriminated against her because she requested accommodation of her religious beliefs.  The complaint (full text) in Pedro v. Duke University, (MD NC, filed 10/27/2017), alleges in part:

7. Because of her Catholic faith, [plaintiff] objects to assisting in abortions, dispensing birth control and contraceptives, and receiving as well as administering vaccines. Ms. Pedro’s employer, Defendant Duke, discriminated against her because of these religious beliefs and practices.

8. Furthermore, after Ms. Pedro made known her religious beliefs and requested religious accommodations, Defendant Duke subjected her to a degrading series of actions designed to punish and retaliate against her for engaging in federally-protected activity.

Apparently the Hospital was willing to accommodate Pedro's objection to receiving vaccines, but not her objection to participating in abortions.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Rejects Objections To Refusal To Reschedule Trial Dates For Alleged Religious Reasons

In People v. Alliance Warburg Capital Management, (NY Cty. Sup. Ct., Oct. 17, 2017), a New York trial court rejected religious free exercise arguments by defendant who had been convicted of defrauding investors out of over $4 million.  Defendant objected to the court's refusal during trial to agree to hold no sessions on Fridays-- though only one session was in fact held on a Friday.  The state did not object to defendant's request.  The court found defendant's religious claims to insincere.  Defendant claimed to be Jewish and contended that "he was an adherent of Kabbalah Judaism and that the tenets of that faith required an observance with respect to "sundown in Israel, not just sundown here in the U.S...."

The court observed that defendant had repeatedly used religion to perpetrate his frauds.  It concluded:

The right to the free exercise of religion is one of our most precious liberties. The use of religion to perpetrate fraud, on the other hand, is abhorrent. This Court, as others, obviously does not make every decision to vindicate a principle. Often, efficiency and the agreement of the parties are controlling. In this case, however, the principle was also important. It was important that Mr. Canady not use religion to defraud the court — as he had done on multiple prior occasions to defraud his victims.

Trump Administration Expands Contraceptive Mandate Exemptions For Religious and Moral Objectors

Yesterday the Trump Administration issued Interim Final Rules (effective immediately) that expand exemptions from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate for organizations, colleges and businesses that have religious or moral objections to furnishing coverage for employees (or enrolled students), as well as for employees who object to having such coverage.  The new Interim rules were issued in two releases, one covering religious exemptions (full text), and the second covering moral objections (full text).  A press release from the Department of Health and Human Service explains the new rules:

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor are announcing two companion interim final rules that provide conscience protections to Americans who have a religious or moral objection to paying for health insurance that covers contraceptive/ abortifacient services. Obamacare-compliant health insurance plans are required to cover “preventive services,” a term defined through regulation. Under the existing regulatory requirements created by the previous administration, employers, unless they qualify for an exemption, must offer health insurance that covers all FDA-approved contraception, which includes medications and devices that may act as abortifacients as well sterilization procedures.

Under the first of two companion rules released today, entities that have sincerely held religious beliefs against providing such services would no longer be required to do so. The second rule applies the same protections to organizations and small businesses that have objections on the basis of moral conviction which is not based in any particular religious belief....

Key Facts about today’s interim final rules:

• The regulations exempt entities only from providing an otherwise mandated item to which they object on the basis of their religious beliefs or moral conviction.

• The regulation leaves in place preventive services coverage guidelines where no religious or moral objection exists – meaning that out of millions of employers in the U.S., these exemptions may impact only about 200 entities, the number that that filed lawsuits based on religious or moral objections....

• The regulations leave in place government programs that provide free or subsidized contraceptive coverage to low income women, such as through community health centers....

Comments on the Interim Final Rules are due by Dec. 5.

The ACLU immediately announced that it was filing suit to challenge the Interim Rules.  The complaint (full text) in  ACLU v. Wright, (ND CA, filed 10/6/2017) contends that the Interim Rules violate the Establishment Clause as well as the equal protection components of the 5th Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

EEOC Files Two Religious Accommodation Suits

On Wednesday the EEOC announced the filing of two separate religious discrimination lawsuits.  One suit (press release) was brought against the Sacramento, California-based supermarket chain Raley's for refusing to continue accommodating the religious needs of a Jehovah's Witness employee. The employee was fired after insisting that she needed to attend religious meetings on Wednesday evenings and Sunday afternoons.

In a second suit (press release), the EEOC sued  the Florida-based Publix Supermarket chain for refusing to accommodate a Ratafarian new hire's religious need to wear his hair in dreadlocks.

EEOC Sues Over Dress Code Accommodation

EEOC announced Monday that it has filed suit against Georgia Blue, a Mississippi- based chain of restaurants which refused to grant an employee a religious accommodation to allow her to wear a blue skirt instead of the required blue jeans.  A job offer to Kaetoya Watkins to work as a restaurant server was rescinded when she told the company that her Apostolic Pentecostal religious belief requires her to wear only skirts or dresses.  AP reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Files Two Religious Discrimination Suits

Last week, the EEOC filed two religious discrimination cases.  In Michigan, it filed suit against a Tim Horton's franchise for refusing to accommodate an employee who for religious reasons wanted to wear a skirt instead of the pants that are a standard part of the company's uniform. According to the EEOC, the Romulus, Michigan Tim Horton's refused to accept the explanation in a letter from the employee's  Pentecostal Apostolic minister, and fired the employee.

In Maryland, the EEOC filed suit against a security services firm because of its treatment of Muslim security guard Kelvin Davis.  According to an EEOC press release, when Davis complained to management about a racial slur directed at him by his supervisor, the company retaliated against him, among other ways, by revoking the prior accommodation it had granted to allow Davis to wear a beard. Ultimately intolerable working conditions led Davis to resign.

Staffing Agency Settles EEOC Suit Over Accommodation of Rastafarian

HospitalityStaff, a company that places employees in central Florida's hotel industry, has settled a religious discrimination claim filed against it by the EEOC. According to EEOC's June 14 press release:

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that HospitalityStaff violated religious discrimination law by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to Courtnay B. Joseph, a Rastafarian, when it required him to cut his dreadlocks to comply with its client's grooming standards in order to keep his position at an Orlando-area hotel. The EEOC said that HospitalityStaff took Joseph off his assignment and never reassigned him.

Under the settlement, the company will pay Joseph $30,000 in damages, will adopt a clear policy on religious and disability accommodation, will provide training to managerial and HR personnel, and will report to the EEOC for 3 years.

UPS Sued Over Firing of Muslim Employees For Prayer Breaks

In a press release yesterday, CAIR reports:

The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations ... today announced the filing of a lawsuit in state court against UPS Mail Innovations and Doherty Staffing Solutions for firing multiple [Somali] Muslim employees who wanted to pray during their break times after previously having allowed them to pray.

The plaintiffs stated that there had been no problem with them using their break time to pray until a new UPS operations manager was hired. He then terminated employees who wanted to pray.

4th Circuit: No Title VII Claim Where Employee Failed To Follow Leave Procedures

In Abeles v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, (4th Cir., Jan. 26, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a religious discrimination claim by an Orthodox Jewish Airports Authority employee who was suspended for five days for taking off work for the last two days of Passover.  The employee gave only informal notice of her intention to take off those days and did not comply with the formal leave request procedure.  The court, responding to plaintiff's argument that under Title VII she should have been granted religious accommodation, said in part:

[N]o conflict existed between Plaintiff observing religious holidays and following MWAA’s neutral rules requiring advance approval of leave following specified procedures. Nor could she establish such a conflict. The Leave Policy merely requires employees to request leave by form or email, and obtain advance approval.

The court also rejected plaintiff's disparate treatment argument.  Discussion of the decision from plaintiff's perspective is provided by a Huffington Post contributor.

School Bus Driver Wants Religious Exemption From Fingerprints In Background Check

A former bus driver for the company that transports Altoona, Pennsylvania school students has filed a religious discrimination suit in federal district court in Pennsylvania.  According to yesterday's Altoona Mirror, a recently enacted state law required bus driver Bonnie F. Kaite to undergo a criminal background check.  She sought a religious accommodation because of her Christian religious beliefs, seeking a background check that does not require her to be fingerprinted. She says that she cannot be fingerprinted because of  the verse in the Book of Revelation prohibiting the "mark of the devil."

Court Upholds Refusal To Accommodate Correctional Officer's Khimar

In Tisby v. Camden County Correctional Facility, (NJ App., Jan. 18, 2017), a New Jersey state appeals court upheld the refusal by the warden of a state correctional facility to grant a religious accommodation to a female Muslim corrections officer who sought to wear a khimar (a tight fitting head covering without a veil) at work.  The appeals court agreed that the requested accommodation would impose an undue hardship in light of the safety risks involved and the ability to hide contraband in head coverings. NJ.com reporting on the decision says that plaintiff will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Chanel Sued By Former Employee Alleging Denial of Religious Accommodation

The Fashion Law reported yesterday on a religious discrimination lawsuit filed last November in a California state trial court against the fashion company Chanel.  Mia Komarevic, former manager of a Chanel outlet in San Francisco, alleges that after she reported a Director who had violated company policy by wearing merchandise out of the store for the night and then returning it as new, her fellow managers retaliated in several ways.  Among other things, they attempted to force her to resign by refusing to grant her a religious accommodation, forcing her to work on Sundays in violation of her Serbian Orthodox beliefs. Ultimately she was fired for unspecified "performance reasons." Earlier this month, defendants removed the case to federal district court for the Northern District of California. (Komarevic v. Chanel, Inc., (Case No. 4:17-cv-00008).

Army Grants Greater Dress and Grooming Accommodation For Sikhs and Muslims

The Army yesterday issued Directive 2017-03 revising Army uniform and grooming standards to allow greater religious accommodation, particularly for Sikh and Muslim members of the Army. The new directive allows religious accommodation to be granted at the brigade level to Sikhs to wear a turban or under-turban/patka, with uncut beard and uncut hair.  For Muslims, brigade-level approval is allowed for hijabs. The Directive allows a similar religious accommodation for beards, which would affect Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and perhaps soldiers of other religious faiths.  Certain exceptions apply, particularly in relation to those who need to wear protective masks. Also, without the need for granting of a religious accommodation, the Directive allows women to wear dreadlocks and individuals to wear certain religious bracelets. The Atlantic reports on the new Directive.

EEOC Suit On Flu Shot Exemptions Is Settled

The EEOC last week announced a settlement of a religious discrimination lawsuit it had filed against the Erie, Pennsylvania-based Saint Vincent Health Center.  At issue was a requirement by the health center that in order for employees to obtain religious exemptions from the requirement they obtain flu shots, they were required to present a certification from a member of the clergy.  Six employees who claimed religious exemptions were not able to present documentation from clergy. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement the health center will pay $300,000 in back pay and damages and offer the employees reinstatement.  A consent decree was also agreed upon under which, among other things, the employer is barred from rejecting a religious accommodation request merely because the employee's belief is not an endorsed teaching of any particular religion or denomination. National Law Review reports on the settlement.