11th Circuit: Rastafarian Paramedic Was Offered Reasonable Accommodation

In Bailey v. Metro Ambulance Services, Inc., (11th Cir., April 6, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ambulance company had offered a Rastafarian paramedic a reasonable accommodation of his religious beliefs as required by Title VII. The court said in part:

AMR offered Bailey a reasonable accommodation. It provided Bailey with the opportunity to maintain his beard and to work on the non-emergency-transport side of its operations, for which DeKalb County’s facial-hair policy did not apply. Had Bailey accepted the offer, his salary, hours, and job description would have remained the same as if he had worked either exclusively on the emergency side or on both the emergency and non-emergency sides of AMR’s operations. As a result, his terms and conditions of employment would not have been affected by the accommodation AMR offered.

Judge Rosenbaum filed a concurring opinion. [Thanks to Joshua Sarnoff via Religionlaw for the lead.]

EEOC Sues On Behalf of Seventh Day Adventist Hotel Employee

EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination suit against a Florida resort hotel, Noble House Solé. The suit alleges that a new director of housekeeping fired a Seventh Day Adventist room attendant who refused to work on Saturdays. For the prior ten months, the employee's Sabbath observance had been accommodated.

EEOC Lawsuit On Behalf of Fired Seventh Day Adventist Employee Settled

The EEOC announced this week that PepsiCo subsidiary Frito-Lay, Inc. has agreed to a 3-year consent decree requiring it to pay $50,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The suit was filed on behalf of a Seventh Day Adventist employee of the company. The newly-promoted employee was fired after he refused on religious grounds to attend two Saturday training sessions. The consent decree also requires specialized training of human resources personnel and review at the regional staff level of future requests for religious accommodation. The EEOC commended the company for its cooperation in resolving the lawsuit.

Court Orders Religious Dietary Accommodation For Capitol Riot Shaman

On Jan. 9, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that  Jacob Anthony Chansley was one of three men charged in connection with the the invasion of the Capitol building on Jan. 6. According to the DOJ release:

... Chansley was identified as the man seen in media coverage who entered the Capitol building dressed in horns, a bearskin headdress, red, white and blue face paint, shirtless, and tan pants. This individual carried a spear, approximately 6 feet in length, with an American flag tied just below the blade.

By late January, Chansley was held in custody in the D.C. jail where he filed a request for a religious dietary accommodation. He sought a diet of only organic food because he is a Shamanic practitioner. When the request was denied, Chansley filed an emergency motion in the D.C. federal district court.  In United States v. Chansley, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22788 (D DC, Feb. 3, 2021), the court handed down a lengthy opinion ordering the dietary accommodation, saying in part that:

... RLUIPA and the First Amendment provide prisoners with powerful mechanisms to challenge aspects of their confinement that substantially burden religious free exercise....

Ordinarily ... Free Exercise challenges to neutral and generally applicable laws post-Smith merit only rational basis review, under which the DOC's dietary rules would be presumptively valid. But the Court finds that Smith does not govern the present inquiry for two independent reasons. First, unlike the neutral and generally applicable drug law at issue in Smith itself, the DOC's decision to deny defendant a dietary religious exemption is more akin to an "individualized governmental assessment" of his religious conduct....

Second, Smith is inapposite because the DOC's policy is neither neutral nor generally applicable.... [T]he DOC provides dietary religious exemptions for both Muslim and Jewish inmates. Its sole rationale for withholding an analogous accommodation for defendant is that his religious views lack "religious merit." But that derisive language simply underscores the fact that not only is the DOC withholding a religious exemption for defendant that it already grants to other religious prisoners, but that it is doing so simply because defendant belongs to a disfavored sect....

Third, defendant has shown that the DOC's refusal to provide him with an all-organic diet is a substantial burden—both subjectively and objectively—to his religious beliefs....

Apparently the D.C. jail was unable to comply with the court's order, and Chansley was transferred to another federal facility that could comply. (See Court's Memorandum of Feb. 4, 2021). ABC11 reports on developments.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Discrimination Suit By Muslim Flight Attendant

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., (Docket No. 20-495, certiorari deied 1/11/2021). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim flight attendant's religious discrimination claim should have been submitted to arbitration. It also rejected her retaliation claim. The flight attendant sought a religious accommodation so that she would not need to prepare or serve alcohol during flights. At issue in the case was the scope of the Railway Labor Act's mandatory arbitration provisions.

EEOC Sues On Behalf of Seventh Day Adventist

 The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit in a Texas federal district court against Quest Diagnostics for refusing to accommodate the religious beliefs of a long-time employee. The EEOC said in part:

[T]he employee, a phlebotomist, is a practicing Seventh-day Adventist who began working for Quest Diagnostics in 2008. The phlebotomist’s religious beliefs prevent her from working on her Sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Quest honored her request for religious accommodation not to work on her Sabbath for the first 10 years of her employment. But in her 11th year with the company, Quest told her it would no longer accommodate her. After the revocation of her accommodation, she was forced to call “out” on each Saturday shift she was scheduled to work until she was ultimately fired by Quest.

EEOC Sues Over Failure To Accommodate Seventh Day Adventist

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against Texas-based Frito-Lay, Inc. for failing to accommodate the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee working in Florida. The Commission explained:

[A] West Palm Beach Frito-Lay warehouse employee applied for and received a promotion to route sales representative. The employee completed approximately five weeks of training without having to train on Saturdays. However, despite learning he could not work on Saturdays be­cause of his Seventh-day Adventist religious beliefs, Frito-Lay sched­uled him to train on Saturdays and terminated him after he failed to report to training on two consecutive Saturdays.

EEOC Sues Over Health Care Company's Refusal To Accommodate Modest Dress Beliefs

The EEOC announced that it filed a religious discrimination suit Wednesday in a Texas federal district court against Wellpath, LLC, a provider of health care in correctional facilities. Describing the suit, the EEOC said in part:

[A] nurse who is a practicing Apostolic Pentecostal Christian was hired by Wellpath to work in the GEO Central Texas Correctional Facility.... Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.

DoD Issues Revised Policy On Religious Liberty In Military Services

On Sept. 1, the Department of Defense issued a revised version of DoD Instruction 1300.17, Religious Liberty in the Military Services. The revised Instruction begins by setting out the purpose of the document:

• Establishes DoD policy in furtherance of the Free Exercise Clause ... recognizing that Service members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion, or to observe no religion at all.

• Establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for the accommodation of religious practices of Service members.

• Establishes DoD policy on the accommodation of individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs), which do not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or health and safety.

• Establishes DoD policy providing that an expression of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) may not, in so far as practicable, be used as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.

• Implements requirements in ... “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act” ... and other laws applicable to the accommodation of religious practices for DoD to provide, in accordance with the RFRA, that DoD Components will normally accommodate practices of a Service member based on a sincerely held religious belief.

• Requires DoD Components to oversee the development and provision of education and training on the policies and procedures pertaining to the accommodation of religious practices of Service members to commanders, judge advocates, chaplains, recruiters, and other personnel....

The new Instruction replaces a version adopted in 2014. (See prior posting.)

Summary Judgment Denied In Rastafarian's Title VII "Failure To Accommodate" Claim

 In EEOC v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., (MD TN, Aug. 20, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to the EEOC which claims that Publix Supermarkets refused to accommodate Guy Usher's Rastafarian religious beliefs that require him to wear his hair in dreadlocks. The court held that disputed issues of fact remain as to whether the Usher informed Publix that its grooming policy conflicts with his religious beliefs, and that factual questions remain as to whether Usher holds sincere religious beliefs on the matter. The court also allowed the EEOC to move ahead with its failure-to-hire claim, but not with its constructive discharge claim.

EEOC Sues Airline Over Requiring Pilot To Attend Religious AA Program

The EEOC this week filed a lawsuit against United Airlines charging that it did not adequately accommodate the religious beliefs of a Buddhist pilot.  In its press release, the EEOC said in part:

United operates a program for its pilots with substance abuse problems that provides them treatment and sponsors them to obtain new medical certificates from the FAA. One of the requirements of United’s program is that pilots regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”). The pilot, who is Buddhist, objected to the religious content of AA and sought to substitute regular attendance at a Buddhism-based peer support group. United refused to accommodate his religious objection and, as a result, the pilot was unable to obtain a new FAA medical certificate permitting him to fly again, the agency charged....

 “Employers have the affirmative obligation to modify their policies to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs,” said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein. “Despite this obligation, United was inflexible and refused to make a modest change its program that would have caused them no hardship.”

Paddle Your Own Kanoo reports on the suit.

EEOC Wins Suit On Behalf of Fired Jehovah's Witness

The EEOC announced yesterday that a New York federal district court has entered a consent decree in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a Jehovah's Witness who was fired as an administrative assistant at a Manhattan pediatric medical practice:

Pediatrics 2000 was aware that its worker was a Jehovah’s Witness when she was hired and initially accommodated her request not to work on Wednesdays due to her religious practices on that day. But then the company demonstrated animus toward her religion, saying that her religion was a “cult,” and placed her on probation for “missing” work on Wednesdays. When the worker requested to be excused from the company’s holiday party for religious reasons, she was fired — even though other employees were permitted to miss the party for non-religious reasons....

The decree gives $68,000 in lost wages and other damages for the worker and grants injunctive relief, including: the creation of anti-discrimination policies and procedures....

Cert. Petition Filed In Title VII Reasonable Accommodation Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Small v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water, (Sup. Ct., file 6/16/2020). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an employment discrimination claim by a Jehovah's Witness, concluding that Memphis Light adequately accommodated their employee's religious beliefs when it allowed him to swap shifts with other employees. (See prior posting.) The petition for review presents the question as:

Whether Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977), which stated that employers suffer an “undue hardship” in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise whenever doing so would require them “to bear more than a de minimis cost,” misinterprets § 2000e(j) and should be overruled.

[Thanks to Jim Sonne for the lead.]

Companies Enter Consent Decree In EEOC Suit Challenging Head-Covering Policy

The EEOC announced yesterday the entry of a consent decree under which the Memphis (TN)- based Versant Supply Chain, Inc. and the Dallas(TX)-based AT&T Services, Inc. have agreed to pay $150,000 to victims of religious discrimination. The companies had enforced policies that prohibit employees from wearing any head coverings (except knit caps). It refused to make accommodations for religious head coverings such as hijabs. The companies also agreed to make policy changes.

Navy Liberalizes Policy On Religious Head Coverings

The U.S. Navy, in a memo dated March 16 (full text), became the third branch of the armed forces to liberalize its policy on accommodation of religious headgear.  As reported by Navy Times:

Previously, religious head coverings like Muslim hijabs and Jewish kippahs were allowed because they did not interfere with uniform covers, but per the March 16 instruction from the Bureau of Navy Personnel, there is no longer a requirement that an approved religious head covering be worn underneath the cover prescribed by the uniform of the day.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

6th Circuit Upholds Company's Religious Accommodation For Jehovah's Witness

In Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, (6th Cir., March 12, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an employment discrimination claim by a Jehovah's Witness. The court concluded that Memphis Light adequately accommodated their employee's religious beliefs when it allowed him to swap shifts with other employees. Judge Thapar filed a concurring opinion, criticizing the Supreme court's Hardison decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., (Docket No. 18-349. certiorari denied 2/24/2020). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a suit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation, held that Walgreen had offered reasonable accommodations for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. (See prior posting). In a concurring opinion (full text) accompanying the denial of cert, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, said that in an appropriate case the Court should reconsider its holding in the Hardison case that an employer need accommodate an employee's religious observance only if it imposes no more than a de minimis hardship on the employer. They concluded however that "this case does not present a good vehicle for revisiting Hardison."

Air Force Changes Rules To Accommodate Religious Headgear and Beards

As reported by the Air Force Times, the Air Force earlier this month (Feb. 7) amended its Dress and Personal Appearance rules to allow airmen to request a waiver to permit wearing of conservative religious apparel, (Full text of amended Air Force Instruction.) The amended rules specifically address the wearing of hijabs, beards, and turbans or under-turbans/ patkas with uncut beard and uncut hair. The Army issued similar rules in 2017. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Fruit Company Settles Suit Over Refusal To Accommodate Sevent Day Adventist

The EEOC announced yesterday that the North Carolina-based Cottle Strawberry Nursery has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the agency. The company was charged with firing a Seventh Day Adventist because she refused to work on Saturdays.  In the settlement it agreed to pay $12,500 in damages and develop a religious accommodation policy.

EEOC Sues Over Denial of Religious Accommodation To Messianic Jewish Employee

The EEOC yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit against Center One, LLC, a call center company:

According to the EEOC's lawsuit ..., a call center employee at Center One's Beaver Falls, Pa., location, who is an adherent of Messianic Judaism, sought a reasonable accommodation of his religious beliefs and practice that he abstain from work on days of religious observance.... Center One imposed disciplinary points against the Messianic Jewish employee for his absences in observance of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Center One required that the employee provide a certification from a religious leader or religious organization "on letterhead" as a precondition of granting him time off as a reasonable accommodation and imposed disciplinary points against the Messianic Jewish employee for his absences in observance of those religious holidays...