EEOC Files Two Religious Discrimintion Cases

In recent days, the EEOC has filed two separate religious discrimination cases. On Sept. 25, the agency announced that it has filed suit against a Michigan-based automobile dealership-- Feldman Automotive, Inc. The suit alleges that the company refused to hire Brandan Allen as a car salesman after learning that he was a religious member of a non-denominational church.

On Sept. 29, the EEOC announced that it has sued U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc., a subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation for failing to accommodate the religious beliefs of an applicant for a utility technician position who was a member of the Nazirite sect of the Hebrew Israelite faith. The company insisted that the applicant Stephen Fayusi take a hair follicle drug test that required cutting his hair at the scalp, and refused alternatives such as hair from other parts of his body.

Suit Seeks Religious Accommodation In Schedulng of Tennis Tournament

The United States Tennis Association's Eastern Adult Section Championships are scheduled for Sept. 27 to 29. The New York Times reports that last Friday one of the teams in the tournament, the Long Beach Lipschik, sued in a New York federal district court seeking to force the USTA to make accommodations for the team since 9 of its 12 members are Orthodox Jews who will not play tennis from sundown Friday to after sundown Saturday. According to JP Updates, the USTA says it has already changed the dates of the tounament once to avoid its conciding with Rosh Hashanah which is celebrated from Wednesday evening to Friday evening this week. A hearing in the case is set for Wednesday. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Philadephpia Schools Settle Religious Accommodation Suit With Justice Department

The Justice Department announced Monday that it has reached a settlement with the School District of Philadelphia in a Title VII religious accommodation lawsuit that it filed in March. (See prior posting.)  At issue is the school district's October 2010 policy change which barred a Muslim school police officer from wearing a beard longer than one-quarter inch. Under the settlement, the school district will adopt a revised appearance and attire policy for police officers that will allow them to apply for a religious accommodations. The school district will also pay damages to two employees, expunge disciplinary items from their files, and will train supervisors on religious accommodation issues.

5th Circuit: Religious Accommodation Turns On Employee's Personal Sincere Beliefs

In Davis v. Fort Bend County, (5th Cir., Aug. 26, 2014), in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Title VII religious accommodation case held that employee Lois Davis, a county desktop support supervisor, had arguably acted out of religious belief when she absented herself from working on Sunday on a move into a new courthouse building in order to attend a special church ground breaking and community service event.  The district court had granted summary judgment to defendant holding that "being an avid and active member of church does not elevate every activity associated with that church into a legally protectable religious practice." The majority in the Court of Appeals concluded, however, that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Davis had a sincere religious belief that she needed to attend church on that Sunday:

 A showing of sincerity ... does not require proof that the July 3rd church event was in itself a true religious tenet, but only that Davis sincerely believed it to be religious in her own scheme of things.

The majority also concluded that there is a genuine factual issue as to whether allowing an available substitute to work Davis' shift would have created undue hardship. Judge Smith dissented.

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.

Seventh Day Adventist Sues Over Hostility To His Not Working On Saturdays

The New York Post reports on an employment discrimination lawsuit filed in a New York federal district court last Monday by a Seventh Day Adventist who formerly was employed by CVS pharmacy.  Plaintiff Nowran Busgith, who worked as a loss-prevention specialist, claims that he had no problems getting Saturdays off work until his supervisor Abdul Salui, a Muslim, learned that the reason for the request was Busgith's observance of his Sabbath. From then on Salui became hostile toward him, repeatedly asked him why he was in a "white boy religion," and refused his requests not to work on Saturdays. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages against CVS and Salui.

Suit Against NYC Transit Authority Over Headwear Rules Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority, (ED NY, March 31, 2014), a New York federal district court denied the New York City Transit Authority's motion to dismiss a discrimination suit filed against it by Stephanie Lewis, a Muslim woman who was employed as a bus driver, but was transferred to a bus depot for refusing to remove, cover with a cap, or affix a logo to her khimar.  Ultimately her employment was terminated.  In a 55-page opinion, the court permitted the suit (now being pursued by the administrator of Lewis' estate) to proceed with claims under Title VII, the 1st and 14th Amendments, the New York state constitution, and state and city human rights laws.

Religious Groups Say Military's New Religious Accommodation Policy Falls Short

As previously reported, in January the Department of Defense adopted a revised policy on religious accommodation in the military, including on matters of appearance and grooming.  However, as explained by the ADL in a blog posting yesterday, many still feel that the new policy does not go far enough. In an April 2 letter to the Pentagon (full text) 21 major religious and civil rights organizations summarized their objections, stating in part:

As currently drafted, ... [the policy] would require religiously observant service members ... to remove their head coverings, cut their hair, or shave their beards ... while their request to accommodate these same religious practices is pending.... We urge you to reconsider this provision, which has the effect of forcing some religiously observant service members to make an impossible choice between their faith and their chosen profession.

Further, under ... [the policy] even if an original accommodation request is approved, religiously observant service members would be required to submit a new request for the same accommodation every time they receive a new assignment, “transfer of duty station, or other significant change in circumstances.” The uncertainty associated with this requirement to repeatedly request an accommodation for the very same religious practices is stifling, and may needlessly limit career opportunities – or, in some cases, end careers.

[Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

11 French Towns Will Ban Schools From Serving Alternatives When Pork Is On The Menu

In local elections in France last week, the right-wing Front National party, led by  Marine Le Pen, won control of eleven local town councils.  According to RFI  and The Local, Le Pen told RTL Radio yesterday that those eleven towns will now ban their school cafeterias from providing Muslim and Jewish students menu alternatives when the school serves pork meals. She said: "We will not accept any religious requirements on school menus.  There is no reason for religion to enter into the public sphere, that's the law."

NYC Transit Authority Must Pay $187,000+ In Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees In Religious Discrimination Suit

In Small v. New York City Transit Authority, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39582 (ED NY, March 25, 2014), a New York federal district court ordered the New York City Transit Authority to pay $187,570 in attorneys fees and $1450 in costs to two Muslim women who has sued the Transit Authority for religious and gender discrimination.  In the lawsuit:

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant removed them from passenger service as bus operators because they wore Muslim head coverings called khimars and refused to wear a hat to cover their khimars.

The suits, after being consolidated with 3 others raising similar claims on behalf of Muslim and Sikh drivers, were settled, granting damages, a new policy on wearing khimars and return of plaintiffs to their jobs.

Fired Buddhist Employee Sues Claiming Failure To Accommodate Religious Beliefs

Courthouse News Service yesterday reported on a Title VII  religious discrimination lawsuit filed in Texas federal district court by the former director of marketing communications for a wireless network services company. Plaintiff Jef Mindrup, a Buddhist, claims he was fired because he refused to comply with a request by the company's co-founder that he add Biblical verses to the company's daily newsletter. His lawsuit alleges that the company "fail[ed] to accommodate plaintiff on the basis of his religion by requiring him to proselytize the Christian religion, a religion other than his own."

Muslim Woman Sues Gym For Refusing To Allow Head Covering

The Albuquerque Journal reported yesterday on a religious and racial discrimination lawsuit filed in New Mexico state court by a Muslim woman (who is also African-American) who was not permitted to enter a Planet Fitness gym because she was wearing a head covering. A Planet Fitness attorney says the gym did not know the head covering was for religious purposes and that it violated the gym's dress code that prohibits jeans, work boots, bandanas, skull caps and revealing apparel. Plaintiff Tarainia McDaniel, who holds a two-year membership in the gym, says she was told that while the dress code was sometimes waived, it could not be in her case because her head covering was red. The lawsuit alleges racial and religious discrimination in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

Washington Legislature Passes Bill Giving Public Employees, Students 2 Days Off For Religious Holidays

Yesterday the Washington state legislature passed and sent to the governor for signature SB 5173 that assures state employees and public school students two days per year off for religious holidays. Public employees, including employees of school districts and public colleges, under the bill are entitled to "two unpaid holidays per calendar year for a reason of faith or conscience or an organized activity conducted under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or religious organization."

The bill also provides that a student is excused from attending school "subject to approval by the student's parent for a reason of faith or conscience, or an organized activity conducted under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or religious organization, for up to two days per school year
without any penalty." However it goes on to provide that "such absences may not mandate school closures." The bill passed 64-32 in the House, and 49-0 in the Senate. Yesterday's Bellingham Herald reports on the bill's passage.

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.

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.

U.S. Military Issues New Policy On Religious Accommodation

The Department of Defense yesterday adopted a revised policy on religious accommodation in the military by issuing significant amendments to Department of Defense Instruction 1300.17 on Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services. (Full text of amended Instruction.).  The new policy provides generally that the Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of military personnel "to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all." It then sets up elaborate criteria for determining whether to grant an exemption from a military rule on religious grounds:

• A request for religious accommodation will be promptly granted if it will not affect mission accomplishment.
• Where an accommodation would affect mission accomplishment, the "compelling interest"-"least restrictive means" standard of RFRA will be used if the military requirement involved "substantially burdens" a service member's exercise of religion.
• Where mission accomplishment is affected and the military policy does not impose a substantial burden, an exemption from it on religious grounds will be denied whenever the needs of mission accomplishment outweigh the needs of the service member.

The directive specifically envisions that accommodations may include matters of grooming and appearance (including hair length), religious tattoos or religiously motivated body piercings. However, in defining when the military has a "compelling interest" in enforcing a policy, the directive provides:

DoD has a compelling government interest in ... elements of mission accomplishment such as military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health, and safety, on both the individual and unit levels. An essential part of unit cohesion is establishing and maintaining uniform military grooming and appearance standards.

Wall Street Journal reports on the new policy.

No Unemployment Benefits Because Employee Failed To Notify Employer of Scope of Needed Religious Accommodation

In Rhodes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 2013 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 890 (PA Commonwealth Ct., Dec. 16, 2013), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that a former veterans' center food service worker had left his job voluntarily, and had not been forced to leave because of discrimination based on his religious beliefs. Therefore he was not entitled to unemployment benefits.  The former employee had informed his employer that he had religious objections to participating in religious holidays.  The employer accommodated him.  However, when the employee refused to set up for a Fathers' Day luncheon, he was disciplined, and resigned.  The court held that the employee failed to advise his employer that his religious beliefs precluded him from participating not just in religious holidays, but in secular ones also, and thus did not give the employer a reasonable opportunity to accommodate those beliefs.

Britain's Court of Appeal Says Religious Discrimination Can Involve Failure To Accommodate Belief Held By Only Some Christians

In Mba v. Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Merton, (EWCA, Dec. 5, 2013), Britain's Court of Appeal held that under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, indirect religious discrimination (i.e. discrimination based on disparate impact of a work rule) can be shown even when the religious belief impacted is held only by some of the members of a religious group.  However it concluded that the Employment Tribunal below, while proceeding in part on an erroneous view of the law, still reached the correct result in rejecting the employee's discrimination claim.

At issue was a claim by a Christian care assistant at a municipally operated children's home that the Borough had failed to adequately accommodate her religious belief that she should not work on Sundays. Under the Equality Regulations, a defense to the indirect discrimination claim is a showing that the work rule was "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." The Court held that the Employment Tribunal below, in assessing proportionality, had incorrectly considered it relevant that abstaining from work on Sunday is not a core component of the more general Christian faith.  The 3 judges disagreed on the extent to which provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights should impact their interpretation of British regulation at issue. They all agreed that other factors made the refusal to accommodate a proportionate response. UK Human Rights Blog and Christian Concern both report on the case. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Employer Offered Reasonable Accommodation To Muslim Employee For Noontime Prayer

In Farah v. A-1 Careers, (D KA, Nov. 20, 2013), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a claim by a Muslim former employee of a temporary staffing agency that the agency unreasonably failed to accommodate his need to pray at noontime. The court held:

Defendants reasonably accommodated Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by offering to let him go off-site daily for his noon prayers. Accordingly, Defendants were not required to consider other proposals and need not show that Plaintiff’s alternative proposals would result in undue hardship....  But assuming, arguendo, the need to do so, the Court finds undue hardship is an independent reason to grant Defendants summary judgment.

The court also concluded that plaintiff had not been constructively discharged.

Consent Decree In EEOC Suit Against Car Dealership That Refused To Hire Sikh

The EEOC announced yesterday the entry of a consent decree in a suit against a New Jersey car dealership for refusing to hire a Sikh man as a sales associate because his religiously-required beard did not meet the company's dress code. The decree in EEOC v. United Galaxy Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Lexus, (D NJ), orders the dealership to pay $50,000 in damages for failing to reasonably accommodate Gurpreet Kherha's religious exercise. The decree also enjoins future discrimination, requires anti-discrimination training of staff, and posting of related information.