Firefighters Can Move Ahead With Title VII Claims Over Forced Leave to Accommodate Religious Objections to Covid Vaccine

In Bingham v. City of San Jose, (CA App., Oct. 30, 2024), a California state appeals court held that five San Jose firefighters who were placed on unpaid leave when they asserted religious objections to the Covid vaccine may move ahead with their claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit, the appeals court held in part:

Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the extended and involuntary unpaid leave allegedly imposed on them was not a reasonable accommodation.  By not requiring plaintiffs to take the COVID-19 vaccines mandated by the County vaccination order, the City eliminated the conflict between the order and plaintiffs’ religious beliefs concerning the COVID-19 vaccines.  However, the alleged unpaid leave did not reasonably preserve plaintiffs’ employment status....

... [T]he amended complaint alleges that the City Fire Department was facing a severe staffing shortage and that a County public health order allowed employers facing such shortages to seek a waiver of the vaccination requirement.  Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that they could have been transferred to positions answering 911 calls, which presumably is not a Higher-Risk Setting and therefore would not have required vaccination under the County vaccination order.  If these allegations are accepted as true, as they must be at the demurrer stage... that would have allowed plaintiffs to work without a vaccination.  Thus, far from establishing the City’s undue hardship defense, the face of the complaint shows that the City could have reasonably accommodated plaintiffs’ beliefs without undue hardship. 

CBN reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal to Accommodate Muslim Applicant's Worship Schedule

On Sept. 30 the EEOC filed a suit under Title VII charging a Washington-state based staffing and recruiting agency with religious discrimination and retaliation against a Muslim job applicant. According to an Oct. 3 EEOC Release:

Logic Staffing invited the applicant to interview ... the day after receiving his online application. On the strength of his application and interview, the staffing supervisor started to explore available openings when the applicant, who is Muslim, disclosed a possible need for a longer mid-day break to attend Friday prayer.... Logic Staffing's supervisor ended the interview and noted that the applicant was not hired due to his schedule and need to attend Friday prayer....

“Title VII requires employers, employment agencies, and unions to make adjustments to the workplace environment to allow applicants and employees to practice their faith, absent undue hardship,” said Elizabeth Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “Instead of exploring alternatives and contacting its business clients to determine if accommodation was possible, Logic Staffing turned away a promising candidate and violated the law."

Company Settles EEOC Suit for $110,000, Compensating Employee Whose Religious Objections to Vaccine Were Ignored

 A national furniture retailer, Hank's Furniture, has settled a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the EEOC. Under a consent decree, Hank's will pay $110,000 in damages and will implement a written policy assuring broad accommodation of religious beliefs that do not impose an undue burden. According to the EEOC's press release:

... [A] former assistant manager at HFI’s Pensacola, Florida, location notified the company that her religious beliefs prevented her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Rather than discuss the employee’s religious beliefs to determine the feasibility of an accommodation, management ignored accommodation requests then summarily denied the employee’s requests and attempted to dispute the validity of her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

EEOC Obtains Settlement for Failure to Accommodate Jewish Employee's Sabbath Observance

The EEOC today announced that two related automotive hauling and logistics companies have agreed to a $65,000 settlement (plus an injunction, reporting, monitoring and employee training requirements) to settle a Title VII suit charging them with religious and racial discrimination and retaliation.  The EEOC said in part in its press release:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Wheeler subjected Charles R. Lynch, III, a Torah Observant employee at its Sheffield, Ohio, location to discrimination when they revoked his religious accommodation that would have allowed him to continue having Saturdays off to observe the Sabbath. The company also exposed Lynch, who is Israeli, to unlawful harassment that included likening him to a terrorist and mocking his religious beliefs.

Court Says States Lack Standing to Challenge EEOC's New PWFA Abortion-Accommodation Rule [CORRECTED]

In States of Tennessee et. al. v. EEOC, (ED AR, June 17, 2024), an Arkansas federal district court held that 17 states that are plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge an EEOC Final Rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  At issue is the Rule's requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodation for employees' elective abortions. The court said in part:

[The states] press dual theories of injury -- sovereign harms and economic harms. The sovereign harms, the States say, are twofold: the rule will abridge their ability to regulate abortions and their interests in maintaining a pro-life message in dealing with state employees. The economic harms are the rule-related compliance costs the States say they will incur in response to potential enforcement....

The sovereign harms are not imminent because there is no credible threat of enforcement. ...

Even assuming an injury in fact, though, the States' sovereign-injury theory still fails for lack of causation and redressability. ...

Unlike in situations involving private employers, the EEOC cannot bring enforcement actions against state employers....  If an agreement isn't reached within thirty days after a charge is filed, the EEOC "shall take no further action and shall refer the case to" the Department of Justice"....

That leaves the alleged economic harms. The States don't claim any sunk costs. They only say that their compliance costs are imminent.. This economic-harm theory fails for two reasons.

First, the challenged costs-- those resulting only from rule-related compliance activities associated with illegal, elective abortions are neither concrete nor particularized. ...

Second, even assuming some concrete and particularized compliance costs related to illegal, elective abortions, these costs are not fairly traceable to any threat of enforcement....

Beyond the intense controversy surrounding abortion, there are no signs that this is a major questions case. Chevron's general rule applies.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post incorrectly said this was decided by a Tennessee federal district court. 

A Louisiana federal district court has just reached the opposite conclusion (see prior posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Upholds Firing of Nurse with Religious Objections to Flu Vaccine

In French v. Albany Medical Center, (ND NY, June 12, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld a hospital's firing of a nurse who refused for religious reasons to receive the flu vaccine. Plaintiff based her religious exemption claim on teachings of the "Israelite" religion which she adopted in 2018. Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the hospital violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs, the court said in part:

[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiff's requested accommodation was not reasonable as it was a blanket exemption request which would have allowed her to continue interacting with staff and vulnerable patients while unvaccinated. This exemption would have caused an undue hardship on Defendant.

The court also rejected plaintiff's claims of disparate treatment and retaliation, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that her religion was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to suspend and terminate her.

Feds Sue Texas Correctional Authorities for Failing to Accommodate Employee's Religious Head Covering

The Justice Department today filed suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice alleging that it violated Title VII by failing to accommodate a clerical employee's religious practice of wearing a head covering pursuant to her Ifa faith. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, (SD TX, filed 5/3/2024), alleges in part:

34. Though Spears identified her belief in the Ifa faith and her religious practice of wearing a head covering, TDCJ was not satisfied that her religious beliefs were sincere or should be accommodated. 

35. Instead, when Spears turned in her accommodation form, Fisk informed her that TDCJ would further research her religion and its practices. Spears questioned whether it was a normal practice to research religions. Specifically, she asked whether research would be done for more mainstream religions. Fisk indicated that it was not TDCJ’s normal practice.

 36. On October 15, 2019, Fisk conducted an internet search of the Ifa religion and practices and faxed the search results along with Spears’s accommodation request to Terry Bailey for her consideration. 

37. Then, on October 16, 2019, TDCJ further questioned the sincerity of Spears’s faith when Bailey mailed a letter demanding documentation or a statement from a religious institution pointing to the specific Ifa belief or doctrine that supported the necessity of Spears’s head covering. The letter also stated that TDCJ would not take any further action to review Spears’s accommodation request until the additional information was submitted.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Accommodating Teacher's Anti-Transgender Beliefs Created Undue Hardship for School Under Title VII

In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, (SD IN, April 30, 2024), an Indiana federal district court in a 46-page opinion that sets out extensive factual background information, dismissed an orchestra teacher's Title VII claim that the school had failed to reasonably accommodate his religious objections to referring to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. The school had initially permitted the teacher to refer to students by their last names only, but later withdrew that accommodation and forced the teacher's resignation. A primary issue in the case was whether continuing to allow a last-names-only accommodation would create an "undue hardship" for the school under the Supreme Court's definition of that term in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Finding that it would, the court said in part:

BCSC's business is "educating all students," which it achieves by "fostering a learning environment of respect and affirmation."...  Part of that is BCSC's mission to "afford[] dignity and empathy toward transgender students."...  Parents, medical professionals, administrators, and many students all agree that pursuing that mission would require transgender students to be addressed by their preferred names and pronouns....

Lest there be any doubt about disruption, Mr. Kluge himself believed that the Last Names Only Accommodation would result in disruption and indeed was encouraged by it.  He explained to Dr. Daghe that far from resigning, he was "encouraged all the more to stay." ...  After all, he believed, his "persecution" was "a sign that [his] faith as witnessed by using last-names-only . . . was being effective."...  Faced with Mr. Kluge's own statements—"pleading" with the school to avoid going down the "transgender path," seeking to discuss with students their "eternal destination," and hoping to stay because his "persecution" surrounding the Last Names Only Accommodation was being "effective"—complaints from others were hardly necessary.  While the Last Names Only Accommodation might have been intended as neutral, it ultimately was perceived as intentional....

As the Supreme Court held in Groff, undue hardship is to be viewed within the context of a particular business, not a particular employee.  The Court compares the cost to BCSC's mission, not Mr. Kluge's.  BCSC could either support its transgender students in pursuit of its mission and comply with the law, or accede to Mr. Kluge's accommodation and risk harm to students and the learning environment and/or substantial and disruptive litigation.... The law of Title VII does not require BCSC to continue an accommodation that actually resulted in substantial student harm, and an unreasonable risk of liability, each sharply contradicting the school's legally entitled mission to foster a supportive environment for all.  The Last Names Only Accommodation was an undue burden to BCSC as a matter of law.....

Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Required Transgender Individuals to Use Alternate Single Occupancy Showers in Public Schools

On April 23, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed Arizona Senate bill 1182. (Full text of veto letter.) The bill, titled the "Arizona Accommodations for All Children Act" (full text) would have required public schools to provide single occupancy showers to transgender individuals who are unwilling to use multi-occupancy showers that correspond to their biological sex as determined at birth. In order to obtain the accommodation of a single occupancy shower, the individual would have been required to make a written request and to furnish satisfactory evidence of the person's sex. If that accommodation is refused, the person would have a cause of action against the public school. Conversely, any person who encounters a person of the opposite sex in a multi-occupancy shower room also has a cause of action against the school if a school employee or administrator gave the person permission to use the shower. In either case, the plaintiff could recover for psychological, emotional and physical harm.

Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Did Not Violate Title VII or Constitution

In White v. University of Washington, (WD WA, March 22, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected Title VII as well as constitutional challenges brought by a healthcare worker who was denied a religious exemption from Washington's Covid vaccine mandate. In discussing Plaintiff's Title VII claim of failure to reasonably accommodate, the court said in part:

With respect to COVID-19 in particular, guidance from the EEOC indicates that “increasing ‘the risk of the spread of COVID-19 to other employees or to the public’” is a ground for finding undue hardship on employers asked to grant religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccination mandates....

 The Ninth Circuit also has found on a motion to dismiss that undue hardship is established as a matter of law where a religious accommodation would require an employer to violate state or federal law.

The court also rejected plaintiff's due process, equal protection and free exercise claims, saying in part:

Plaintiff has made no allegations regarding what her religious beliefs are, let alone how they were burdened by Defendants’ adherence to Proclamation 21-14.

4th Circuit: Inmate's Claim for Religious Diet Should Move Forward

In Pendleton v. Jividen, (4th Cir., March 20, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a West Virginia federal district court should not have dismissed a RLUIPA religious diet claim brought by an inmate who follows the Sufi Original Traditions of Islam. Those Traditions allow him to only eat fruit, vegetables and certain fish. The court said in part:

In 2014 ... prison officials introduced a new diet program for those with religious dietary restrictions. Under that program, a single “religious special diet” is served—one designed to meet the needs of all faiths by following the rules of the most diet-restrictive ones. With all forms of meat off the table, the diet uses soy as its primary protein source....

Although Pendleton’s religious beliefs do not forbid consumption of soy as such, the complaint alleges that Pendleton experiences vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, and other digestive issues when he does so. And this, the complaint asserts, is of “religious significance” to Pendleton because his inability to properly digest soy renders such foods "Haram" for him....

Defendants insist that Pendleton could obtain a meat-free and soy-free diet by obtaining test results showing he has a medically significant allergy to soy. And, the defendants continue, because Pendleton has refused to submit to allergy testing ... he has not plausibly alleged a substantial burden on his religious practice. That argument fails too. Pendleton need not produce documentation of his alleged soy allergy to survive a motion to dismiss.... Even if Pendleton took an allergy test and that test was negative, it would not eliminate his religiously based objections to eating soy.  For that reason, Pendleton has plausibly alleged a substantial burden on his religious practices, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

Muslim Employee Recovers $70,000 From Employer Who Refused Grooming Rule Accommodation

The EEOC announced on Wednesday that it has entered a consent decree in its lawsuit against Blackwell Security Services, Inc.  The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the company violated Title VII by failing to give an exemption from its no-beard policy to a Muslim employee who worked as a concierge in Chicago, even though granting the accommodation would have imposed no cost and not created an operating burden on Blackwell.  According to the EEOC:

To avoid losing his job, the employee complied and shaved his beard, causing him significant distress....

Under the consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Blackwell will pay $70,000 in compensation to the now-former employee. Blackwell will also provide training to relevant management employees on federal laws prohibiting religious discrimination and will report any additional complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC for the decree’s duration.

Court Rules On Class Action Certification of Claims by Religious Objectors to Covid Vaccine

 In Chavez v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, (ND CA, Jan. 28,2024), a California federal district court refused to certify as a class action a suit on behalf of employees of the Transit District (BART) who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from BART's Covid vaccine mandate. The court concluded that the disparate factual issues underlying the claims under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act means that common issues of law or fact do not predominate. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs submitted nearly as many systems of belief and grounds for objection as they did applications. Whether or not any one request rests on a bona fide religious belief presents an individual inquiry that requires the consideration of evidence pertaining only to the response in question....

BART’s undue hardship showing—likely to be the dispositive issue in this action—also rests on individual factual issues....

It similarly concluded that common issues did not predominate in plaintiffs' First Amendment Free Exercise Claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs cite myriad scripture and personal experiences, CDC VARS data and concerns regarding health consequences ... among others, as grounds for objection. Many identify non-vaccination as a core religious tenant, some characterize their decision as a “personal choice,” a number discuss medical concerns.... [T]he need to determine whether plaintiffs have met the bona fide religious belief threshold generates “an unmanageable variety of individual . . . factual issues,” and forecloses on class certification....

Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs also failed to meet the requirement that a class action is the superior way to adjudicate the claims.

In UnifySCC v. Cody, (ND CA, Jan. 29, 2024), a different Northern District of California judge certified a class action (except as to damages) on behalf of 463 individuals who obtained a religious exemption from the Covid vaccine mandate of San Jose County but who, because they were in high risk roles, were placed on administrative leave until reassignments or transfers to lower risk positions became available.  The court ruled:

This Class is certified with respect to the following common questions regarding Defendants’ liability: 

1. Whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise and equal protection of the law by prioritizing medical exemptions over religious exemptions in high-risk settings; 

2. Whether Defendants’ Risk Tier System violated the Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection Clause because it relegated Plaintiffs and the Class members to unpaid leave but allowed some unvaccinated or non-boosted employees to continue to work; 

3. Whether the County’s religious exemption and/or accommodation procedure was either non-neutral or not generally applicable such that it constitutes an individualized assessment ... and is thereby subject to strict scrutiny; 

4. Whether Defendants provided Individual Plaintiffs and the Class members with reasonable accommodation as required under FEHA and Title VII; and 

5. Whether Defendants violated the Establishment Clause by demonstrating hostility towards religion. 

The Class is NOT certified with respect to questions of damages.

County Revises Policy on Religious Head Coverings in Booking Photos in Settlement of Suit by Muslim Woman

In a Settlement Agreement (full text) in Johnston v. Rutherford County, Tennessee, (MD TN, 1/18/2024), the county has agreed to pay $100,000 in damages to a Muslim woman who authorities required to remove her hijab for a booking photo. Sophia Johnston was stopped by police for having a taillight out and was arrested when it turned out she had a 6-year-old outstanding warrant for failing to appear on charges of driving with a suspended license. (Background.) In the Settlement Agreement, the county also agreed to delete from its records photos and video of Johnston without her hijab. Johnston will have a booking photo wearing her hijab retaken. Under the Agreement, the county has also adopted a new policy on Religious Accommodations for Head Coverings During Booking Process (full text) and has updated its Detention Center Protocols (full text) to allow booking photos to be taken with religious head coverings so long as the head covering is first removed for a search.  WZTV News reports on the settlement.

Nurse Sues Clinic for Refusing to Accommodate Her Objection to Prescribing Contraceptives

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a nurse-practitioner who was fired from her position at a Florida CVS MinuteClinic. The complaint (full text) in  Kristofersdottir v. CVS Health Corp., (SD FL, filed 1/18/2024), alleges that CVS revoked all religious accommodations that allowed employees to refuse to prescribe contraceptives, including the accommodation it had given to plaintiff for more than 7 years.  Plaintiff, a Roman Catholic, objected to prescribing hormonal contraceptives for patients. According to the complaint:

CVS corporate culture changed around 2021. Instead of protecting religious freedom, CVS began to treat religious practice as a source of "privilege."...

CVS never discussed possible accommodation options with Ms. Kristofersdottir even though CVS had numerous ways to provide a reasonable accommodation without undue hardship on the business.

When Florida subsequently passed a law protecting conscience-based objections by employees, CVS offered plaintiff her job back, but she declined the offer. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

School Did Not Violate Title VII in Denying Religious Exemption to Covid Rules

In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, (ED NY, Jan. 12, 2024), a New York federal district court held that a school district did not violate title VII's ban on religious discrimination in employment when it refused to accommodate a school psychologist's religious objection to a state mandate to either test weekly for Covid or show proof of vaccination.  Plaintiff considered both of these alternatives to be medical interventions that would violate her faith in God's ability to protect her and keep her healthy.  She instead sought as an accommodation either periodically completing a health questionnaire or working remotely. Rejecting those alternatives, the school placed her on unpaid leave. The court said in part:

The state’s test-or-vaccination requirement was a neutral law of general applicability that only incidentally affected employees with religious objections and did not “target[] religious conduct for distinctive treatment.” ... The requirement is, therefore, constitutionally permissible if it survives rational basis review.... The state’s requirement clearly satisfies this standard....

Plaintiff’s claim that she was unlawfully denied a religious accommodation also fails....

A proposed accommodation becomes an undue hardship for an employer if it would cause the employer to violate the law....

Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposed accommodation of working remotely also did not violate Title VII.... [H]er proposal that she be permitted to work remotely going forward included a request that Defendant cut back on her job responsibilities to accommodate remote work.... Plaintiff, therefore, implicitly conceded that her proposed accommodation would “involve the elimination of an essential function of [her] job,” thereby rendering the proposal unreasonable....

The court also concluded that plaintiff's employer did not violate the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act.

EEOC Announces Settlements In 2 Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

In the last several days, the EEOC has announced settlements in two unrelated Title VII religious discrimination suits filed by the agency.  Last week the EEOC announced that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system's flu vaccine requirement. The employee, who worked primarily outside and had limited contact with the public or other staff, had been granted an exemption in 2017 and 2018, but was denied one and fired in 2019. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Children's Healthcare will also modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.

Yesterday the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc., a company that provides protective services to federal agencies, will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must wear beards. The company denied the accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a documented religious leader. The company will also institute a new religious accommodation policy.

Employees' Objections to Covid Vaccine Were Not Religious

In Foshee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, (D MD, Oct. 17, 2023), a Maryland federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim by two employees who were denied a religious exemption from a company's Covid vaccine mandate, finding that their objections were not religious in nature. The court said in part:

Both Foshee and Pivar made similar assertions – that they are guided in their important decisions by God or the Holy Spirit, respectively, that they personally do not see the value in and are concerned about the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, and that they have not felt God or the Holy Spirit calling them to disregard their consciences and get the vaccine....

Foshee’s position, that God gave him a conscience that tells him what to do, similarly amounts to a “blanket privilege.” The same conscience-based justification could be used to evade any job requirement that Foshee disagreed with. Pivar’s position that he listens to the guidance of the Holy Spirit which guides him in his difficult decisions is in the same vein....

Of course, harboring secular reasons alongside religious reasons does not automatically disqualify the religious beliefs, but in this circumstance, the reasons are inextricably intertwined in a way that dilutes the religious nature. For example, plaintiffs do not want to take the vaccines, therefore their consciences tell them not to do it, and they believe it is God’s will or in accord with the Holy Spirit that they follow their consciences. That reasoning is not subject to any principled limitation in its scope. Their beliefs thus confer the type of unverifiable “blanket privilege” that courts cannot permit to be couched as religious in nature.

Restaurant Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

The EEOC announced last week that a now-closed restaurant in Atlanta that was part of Landry's, a national restaurant group that continues to operate, has settled a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit through a consent decree filed in a Georgia federal district court.  The EEOC said in part:

The EEOC alleged in its suit that Del Frisco’s violated federal law by failing to accommodate an employee’s religious practices and then discharging her. The employee, a server at the restaurant, had an existing religious accommodation of not working on Tuesdays so she could attend worship services. In 2019, when New Year’s Eve fell on a Tuesday, Del Frisco’s revoked her accommodation and tried to force her to work—alleging it was mandatory for servers to work the holiday. Despite saying it was a mandatory workday, Del Frisco’s gave other servers who did not need a religious accommodation the day off....

Under the consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Del Frisco’s will pay $25,000 in monetary damages to the former employee and train its management employees on religious discrimination at approximately 30 Del Frisco’s sister restaurants.

EEOC Sues on Behalf of Muslim Employee

 On Tuesday, the EEOC announced that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against Blackwell Security Services, Inc., a hotel and condominium staffing company, for refusing to accommodate a Muslim employee's religious practice.  According to the EEOC:

[T]he employee, who worked as a concierge in Chicago, Illinois, is a practicing Muslim who wears a beard as required by his religious beliefs. Soon after he was hired, he was told by a Blackwell supervisor that it was company policy that all employees be clean shaven. The employee requested an exemption from the policy to accommodate his religious practice. However, according to the EEOC’s complaint, Blackwell told him to shave his beard or be terminated. To avoid losing his job, the employee complied.