Delivery Service Settles EEOC Suit Charging Failure To Accommodate Church Attendance

The EEOC announced yesterday that Tampa Bay Delivery Service, an Amazon delivery provider, has settled a religious discrimination suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of a driver who was fired for refusing Sunday shifts in order to attend church services. The company will pay $50,000 in damages, will provide training on religious discrimination to managers and dispatchers, and will designate a religious accommodation coordinator.

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Reasonable Accommodation Case

Yesterday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Groff v. DeJoy.  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court (full text of district court opinion) dismissed Title VII claims brought by an Evangelical Christian postal worker who resigned after receiving warning letters and suspensions for refusing to work on Sundays. The district court rejected claims of religious discrimination and held that plaintiff had been offered shift swapping that met the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of Title VII.  The Third Circuit has not previously decided an issue on which the Circuits are split-- whether an employer must wholly eliminate a conflict between work and religion in order for an accommodation to be reasonable under Title VII. The district court concluded that complete elimination is not required.

Florida Hotel Settles EEOC Suit On Behalf Of 7th Day Adventist For $99,000

EEOC announced this week that a Sunny Isles Beach, Florida resort hotel, Noble House Solé, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination claim by paying $99,000 to a terminated employee, and also to create an anti-discrimination policy and to train employees regarding religious accommodation.  The complaint was brought by a Seventh Day Adventist employee who worked a room attendant. She needed Saturdays off. According to the EEOC:

Solé Miami accommodated the employee’s Sabbath observance for over ten months after she began her employment without incident.  Unfortunately, when a new supervisor came onboard, Solé Miami scheduled the employee to work on a Saturday.  When the employee missed work, Solé Miami immediately terminated her, even though employees that missed work for non-religious reasons were given multiple warnings prior to termination.

Greyhound Settles EEOC Religious Accommodation Lawsuit

The EEOC announced this week that Greyhound Lines has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it on behalf of a Muslim woman who, after being accepted into the bus line's driver training program, was told she could not wear an abaya. The abaya is a loose fitting outer garment worn because of religious beliefs regarding modesty. Greyhound will pay $45,000 in damages, and will train its human resource and hiring personnel on handling of religious accommodations.

United Airlines Can Place Employees With Religious Objections To Vaccine On Unpaid Leave

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., (ND TX, Nov. 8, 2021), a Texas federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent United Airlines from placing on unpaid leave employees who received religious or medical exemptions from United's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

This Order does not rule on the ultimate merits of this case. Instead, this Order merely rules on Plaintiffs’ request for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction....

The Court is not insensitive to Plaintiffs’ plight. A loss of income, even temporary, can quickly ripple out to touch nearly every aspect of peoples’ lives, and the lives of their families and dependents. But the Court’s analysis must be guided by the law, not by its sympathy.

Despite the novel facts presented here, the case law is clear that hardships stemming from loss of income are remediable; axiomatically such hardships cannot be called irreparable.

The Hill reports on the decision.

School Must Offer Alternatives To Nursing Students Who Assert Religious Objection To COVID Vaccination Requirement

In Thoms v. Maricopa County Community College District,(D AZ, Nov. 5, 2021), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two nursing students who sought religious exemptions from the COVID vaccination requirement they faced in order to complete their 3-day clinical rotation. Originally the school required all students to comply with the placement requirements of its most stringent clinical partner, but later modified this for students doing their rotation at a clinic that had less stringent standards. However this did not help plaintiffs since their clinic required universal vaccination with no religious exemptions. The court held that under Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act, the school had not shown that it met the compelling interest/ least restrictive means test.  It undermined its interest in preventing the spread of COVID by allowing religious exemptions when students were assigned to rotations at clinics which did not mandate vaccination. It also had options such as simulated clinical experiences that could be offered as accommodations. The court applied a similar strict scrutiny analysis to plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the school's policy is not a generally applicable one since in at least one case the school provided an alternative to in-person clinicals.

Limited Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate Challenged

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging provisions limiting religious exemptions from the University of Colorado Medical School's vaccine mandate.  The school offers a religious exemption only to those whose objections are based on a religious belief whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe, M.D. v. University of Colorado,(D CO, filed 9/29/2021), says in part:

[The policy] imposes two necessary conditions to ... any religious accommodation, namely:

a. ... [A] sincere religious belief that opposes acceptance of “all immunizations” and vaccines; and

b. That the person requesting a religious accommodation be a member of an organized religion whose tenets include a hierarchically promulgated, authoritative position on the moral liceity of “all immunizations” and vaccines....

Both conditions are clearly forbidden by the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States constitution and the Religious Freedom provisions of the Colorado constitution.... [They] privileg[e] hierarchically prescribed religious belief over autonomously prescribed (yet sincerely held) religious belief.

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

Religious Accommodation That Violates OSHA Rules Not Required

In Hamilton v. City of New York, (ED NY, Sept.28, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed religious discrimination and failure to accommodate claims brought by a Jewish New York City firefighter. Plaintiff, who wore a beard for religious reasons, was transferred from full-duty to light duty because OSHA regulations preclude firefighters with beards from wearing close fitting respirators. The court held that NYFD cannot be held liable for failing to offer an accommodation that is expressly prohibited by federal law.

No Violation In Refusing To Accommodate Prosecutor's Religious Request For Permanent Remote Work

In Leone v. Essex County Prosecutor's Office, (D NJ, Sept. 23, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court ruled against an assistant prosecutor in the Essex County Prosecutor's Office who sought a religious accommodation that would allow him to continue to work from home indefinitely as pandemic remote-work schedules were phased out. Plaintiff claims that his religion "'requires him to pray, including aloud and spontaneously, throughout each day,' preferably in his backyard to access 'peace and solitude.'" Plaintiff rejected numerous proposed accommodations that would allow him to pray while at his office. The court applied rational basis review to plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim, concluding that defendants had articulated "a myriad of reasons" justifying their denial of plaintiff's requested accommodation. It also concluded that there had not been a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Suit Says Trader Joe's Failed To Accommodate Religious Objection To COVID Vaccination

Suit was filed earlier this month under Title VII and California state law by a 26-year Christian employee of Trader Joe's who was fired after the company refused to adequately accommodate his religious objections to being vaccinated against COVID. Plaintiff Gregg Crawford was initially granted a religious exemption from the company's mandatory vaccination policy. However an important management meeting was limited to vaccinated employees, and the company refused to arrange an accommodation that would allow Crawford to attend in person or remotely. He was told his non-attendance would negatively affect his performance review. Shortly after Crawford complained about this and consulted an attorney, he was fired. The complaint (full text) in Crawford v. Trader Joe's Company, (CD CA, filed 9/7/2021), alleges violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and of state anti-discrimination laws. KTLA News reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Suit Protecting Religious Objector To Fingerprinting Is Settled

The EEOC announced last week that Minnesota- based AscensionPoint Recovery Services has settled an EEOC religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by agreeing to pay $65,000 in damages and implementing changes to its policies. According to the EEOC, the company fired a Christian employee who objected to being fingerprinted:

The fingerprinting requirement was prompted by a background check procedure requested by of one of the company’s clients. Shortly after the Christian employee informed APRS that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his religious practices, APRS fired him. APRS did so without asking the client whether an exemption was available as a religious accommodation, and despite the fact that alternatives to fingerprinting were available.

Suit Challenges Absence Of Religious Exemptions In New York's Vaccine Mandate For Health Care Workers

Suit was filed Friday in a New York federal district court by New York health care workers challenging the absence of religious exemptions in New York state's mandate that all health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19. The complaint (full text) in John Doe I v. Hochul, (ED NY, filed 9/10/2021) and the accompanying motion and memorandum of law (full text) seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction allege free exercise, equal protection and Title VII violations, among others. Plaintiffs allege in part:

Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in the above Scriptures, preclude them from accepting any one of the three currently available COVID-19 vaccines derived from, produced or manufactured by, tested on, developed with, or otherwise connected to aborted fetal cell lines.

The suit, filed by Liberty Counsel (press release) is similar to one filed by the same organization last month against the state of Maine. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's New York Times carried a lengthy article on the growing reliance on religious objections to COVID-19 vaccinations.

UPDATE: A similar suit was filed on Monday in the Northern District of New York on behalf of health care personnel, brought by the Thomas More Society.  Dr. A. v. Hochul, (ND NY, filed 9/13/2021) (full text of complaint).

Muslim Police Officer Can Move Ahead With Complaint On Accommodation Of Beard

In Hashmi v. City of Jersey City, (D NJ, Sept. 7, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court allowed a Sunni Muslim police officer to move ahead on some, but not all, of his challenges to a Jersey City Police Department order. The Order (later amended) required officers who wear beards for religious reasons to maintain them at no more than one-half inch in length unmanicured. Plaintiff claims this conflicts with an accommodation letter previously issued to him which requires his beard to be "neat and clean." He also claims subsequent harassment and retaliation. The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim, finding that the Order is neutral and generally applicable. The court also rejected plaintiff's equal protection challenge, and his Title VII religious discrimination claim. However the court permitted him to move ahead with his Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim and his Title VII and state law retaliation claims.

Teacher Who Refused To Address Transgender Students By Preferred Names Loses Title VII Suit

In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, (SD IN, July 12, 2021), an Indiana federal district court dismissed a suit by a former teacher who resigned rather than comply with a school policy requiring him to address transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. Plaintiff contended that it violated his Christian religious beliefs to comply with this policy. He sued under Title VII, claiming failure to accommodate his religious beliefs and retaliation. The court said in part:

[A]  name carries with it enough importance to overcome a public school corporation's duty to accommodate a teacher's sincerely held religious beliefs against a policy that requires staff to use transgender students' preferred names when supported by a parent and health care provider. Because BCSC ... could not accommodate Mr. Kluge's religious beliefs without sustaining undue hardship, and because Mr. Kluge has failed to make a meaningful argument or adduce evidence in support of a claim for retaliation, BCSC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED....

Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Over Employer's Failure To Accommodate Religious Objection To Finger Printing

 The EEOC announced last week that it has filed suit in a Minnesota federal district court against AscensionPoint Recovery Services alleging religious discrimination:

APRS had requested that its employees be finger-printed as a result of a background check requirement of one of its clients. Shortly after the Christian employee informed APRS that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his religious practices, APRS fired him.... APRS did so without asking the client whether an exemption was available as a religious accommodation, and despite the fact that alternatives to fingerprinting are available.

Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Social Services In Its Refusal To Certify Same-Sex Couples As Foster Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,  (Sup. Ct., June 17, 2021), held unanimously that Philadelphia has violated the free exercise rights of Catholic Social Services by refusing to contract with CSS to provide foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the court which was joined by five other justices, avoiding the question of whether to overrule Employment Division v. Smith. The Court said in part:

Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.... CSS urges us to overrule Smith, and the concurrences in the judgment argue in favor of doing so.... But we need not revisit that decision here. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable....

Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature....

[S]ection 3.21 incorporates a system of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner “has no intention of granting an exception” to CSS.... But the City “may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Smith, 494 U. S., at 884....

The question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. 

Once properly narrowed, the City’s asserted interests are insufficient.

Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and (except for one paragraph) by Justice Breyer, saying in part:

In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling. As a matter of text and structure, it is difficult to see why the Free Exercise Clause—lone among the First Amendment freedoms—offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.

Yet what should replace Smith? The prevailing assumption seems to be that strict scrutiny would apply whenever a neutral and generally applicable law burdens religious exercise. But I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime, particularly when this Court’s resolution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rights—like speech and assembly—has been much more nuanced.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed a 77-page opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing that the Smith case should be overruled. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and contending that Smith should be overruled.

CNBC reports on the decision. 

Summary Judgment Denied To Plaintiffs Challenging Refusal of High School Tournament To Accommodate Sabbath Observance

In Chung v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, (WD WA, May 10, 2021), five current and former high school students sued the state's Interscholastic Activities Association for failing to accommodate Seventh Day Adventists' Sabbath observance in scheduling and administering the high school state tennis championships. The court refused to grant plaintiffs' summary judgment on any of their claims. It found that four of the plaintiffs lacked standing since they had not yet reached the state championship tournament. As to the remaining plaintiff who had standing, the court held that material issues of fact remain on the question of whether her federal free exercise claim is subject to strict scrutiny. Analyzing her state free exercise claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial burden on her religious exercise since she was merely denied the right to participate in post-season play in the sport of her choice.

Seventh Day Adventist Loses Failure To Accommodate Claim

In Staple v. School Board of Broward County, Florida, (SD FL, April 30, 2021), a Florida federal district court dismissed a Seventh Day Adventist's Title VII religious discrimination claim. Plaintiff was a shift supervisor for the county's school bus drivers.  He wanted to alter his hours in the winter months so he would not need to work after sundown on Fridays.  His supervisor instead insisted that he use his hours accrued for vacation and sick leave. The court held that this did not amount to discharge or discipline, which is a prerequisite to a failure to accommodate claim. Mere adverse employment action short of that, while it supports a disparate treatment claim, does not, according to the court, support a failure to accommodate claim. The court also dismissed his claim under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, finding that he did not allege a substantial burden on his religious exercise.

Virginia GOP Rejects Rule Change To Allow Absentee Voting For Religious Reasons In Upcoming Saturday Convention

Washington Post reports that in a vote last Thursday, Virginia's Republican State Central Committee refused to amend its rules to allow observant Jews and others with religious objections to vote absentee in the upcoming Saturday, May 8, nominating convention for governor and two other statewide offices.  While a narrow majority favored the change, rules required a 75% vote to change party rules. Those who opposed the change said that the issue was raised too close to the election date. The request was made in a letter from four rabbis earlier this month. The absentee option is already available for active-duty military. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Jewish Sailor Gets Temporary Reprieve From Order To Shave Beard

Suit was filed yesterday in the D.C. federal district court by a Jewish sailor who was ordered to shave his beard which he maintains for religious reasons. Other plaintiffs in the case are Muslim sailors.  The complaint (full text) in Di Liscia v. Austin, (D DC, filed 4/15/2021), alleges in part:

1. Plaintiff Edmund Di Liscia, a devout Chassidic Jew and a Sailor in the United States Navy with a rating as an Electricians Mate, Nuclear Power 3rd Class Petty Officer (EMN3), seeks emergency relief to stop Defendants from forcing him to shave in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

2. Over two years ago, shortly after joining the Navy, EMN3 Di Liscia received a “no-shave chit” permitting him to maintain his beard as a religious accommodation for his faith. That accommodation remained effective during his current deployment aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. Indeed, throughout the deployment, his fellow Sailors aboard the USS Roosevelt have all received MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) no-shave chits that allow them to shave only once every fourteen days.

3. But on or around April 14, 2021, EMN3 Di Liscia’s chief informed him that he must shave on the morning of April 16, 2021, and regularly thereafter....

Plaintiff moved for a TRO (memo in support of TRO). The military agreed that it would not require Di Liscia to shave, at least for the time being. The court issued a temporary restraining order (full text) barring the military from requiring him to shave or trim his beard. Military.com reports on the case.