Kroger Settles Religious Accommodation Suit With EEOC

As reported by HR Dive, the EEOC announced yesterday that it has reached a settlement in a religious discrimination suit it had filed against a Conway, Arkansas Kroger store for failing to accommodate two employees who refused to wear the company's apron which features a four-color heart symbol. Kroger developed the symbol as part of a campaign emphasizing the company's four service-based commitments. The employees insisted that the symbol promotes the LGBT community which the employees' religious beliefs preclude them from doing. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement, Kroger will pay each employee $20,000 in back pay plus $52,000 each in additional damages.  Another $36,000 in damages is apparently for attorneys' fees.  Kroger has also agreed to create a religious accommodation policy and will give additional religious discrimination training to store manage­ment.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal to Accommodate First Responders' Need to Wear Beards

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII and ADA suit against Global Medical Response, Inc. and American Medical Response, Inc. which operate one of the largest medical transport companies in the country. The suit alleges that the companies have refused to accommodate employees in EMT and paramedic positions who wish to wear facial hair for religious reasons or because of medical conditions. The companies contend that facial hair prevents respirators from fitting properly, but the EEOC says that the companies should have accommodated the religious and medical needs of employees by allowing them to wear the type of respirators that would have allowed them to maintain beards.

European Court OK's Company Rule Neutrally Banning Wearing of All Signs of Religious Belief

 In L.F. v. S.C.R.L., EU EDJ, Oct. 13, 2022), the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in a request from Belgium for a preliminary ruling, held that a private company may prohibit employees from wearing all visible signs of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace.  This would not constitute direct discrimination on the ground of religion or belief in violation of Council Directive 2000/78 so long as the company's policy covers any manifestation of religious, philosophical or spiritual beliefs without distinction and treats all employees alike by requiring them in a general and undifferentiated way to dress neutrally. Such a rule might constitute indirect discrimination if it had a disparate impact on persons of one religion, but would not if it were objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim were appropriate and necessary. The question arose in the context of a company's refusal to employ a Muslim woman as an intern because she insisted on wearing a hijab. The Court issued a press release announcing the decision. Law & Religion UK also has coverage.

Pre-School Teacher Sues After Being Fired For Her Stance On Same-Sex Marriage

A child-care employee who was fired by her employer for refusing to read to her pre-schoolers books that celebrate same-sex relationships has filed suit alleging religious discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment and retaliation. The complaint (full text) in Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons Children's Center, LLC, (CA Super. Ct., filed 10/13/2022), filed in a California state trial court, alleges that plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs prevent her from promoting messages that support same-sex marriage. After an initial informal accommodation, the school's director, who took personal offense at plaintiff's religious beliefs, refused to grant plaintiff a formal religious accommodation.  As a prelude to her dismissal, plaintiff was forced to leave the school building mid-day in extremely hot weather.  Plaintiff was terminated after she refused the requirement that she receive diversity awareness training. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the law suit.

Alternatives For Employees With Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Are Not Discriminatory

In Dollar v. Goleta Water District, (CD CA, Oct. 3, 2022), a California federal district court held that the COVID vaccination policy for employees of the Goleta Water District did not discriminate on the basis of religion against employees who obtained a religious exemption. Plaintiffs contended that the District's policy is discriminatory because it imposes special mask and testing requirements and requires authorization to enter certain buildings for plaintiffs because they have a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not alleged that employees who receive exemptions on religious grounds are treated any differently from employees who receive exemptions on non-religious grounds. Instead, plaintiffs have only alleged that the policy treats them differently from other employees because of their vaccination status, not because of their religion.

Christian Rescue Mission Charged With Religious Discrimination Files Suit

Suit was filed yesterday in a Wyoming federal district court by a Christian rescue mission challenging interpretations by the EEOC and the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services of the employment discrimination provisions of state and federal law.  The complaint (full text) in Rescue Mission v. EEOC, (D WY, filed 9/20/2022), contends that the Rescue Mission's free exercise and free expression rights were violated when the EEOC and WDWS found probable cause that the Mission engaged in religious discrimination in refusing to hire non-Christians as associates in its Thrift Stores.  The agencies took the position that a religious exemption was available only as to "ministerial" positions. The Rescue Mission's complaint alleges in part:

The [Thrift store] position has spiritual qualifications that require candidates to “[m]aintain a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” “live a Godly life in public and private, thereby providing a Christian role model for those we seek to reach,” and “[a]gree with the WRM Statement of Faith.”

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: High School Must Recognize Fellowship of Christian Athletes

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, (9th Cir., Aug. 29. 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ordered reinstatement of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes as an official student club at San Jose high schools.  The majority said in part:

This case pits two competing values that we cherish as a nation: the principle of non-discrimination on the one hand, and the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion and free speech on the other hand.

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) requires students serving in leadership roles to abide by a Statement of Faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The San Jose Unified School District ... revoked FCA’s status as an official student club at its high schools, claiming that FCA’s religious pledge requirement violates the School District’s non-discrimination policy.

... Under the First Amendment, our government must be scrupulously neutral when it comes to religion: It cannot treat religious groups worse than comparable secular ones. But the School District did just that.

The School District engaged in selective enforcement of its own non-discrimination policy, penalizing FCA while looking the other way with other student groups. For example, the School District blessed student clubs whose constitutions limited membership based on gender identity or ethnicity, despite the school’s policies barring such restricted membership. The government cannot set double standards to the detriment of religious groups only.

Judge Lee filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

One schoolteacher called the Fellowship of Christian Athletes’ (FCA) beliefs “bullshit” and sought to ban it from campus. Another described evangelical Christians as “charlatans” who perpetuate “darkness” and “ignorance.”...

This is not, to put it mildly, neutral treatment of religion. More than a whiff, a stench of animus against the students’ religious beliefs pervades the Pioneer High School campus. I write separately to highlight the depth of that animus and explain why it is yet another reason why the School District violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Judge Christen dissented, saying in part:

My colleagues are correct that the competing values at issue in this case are cherished by our nation and enshrined in our Constitution. The plaintiffs will surely have their day in court for their claims of past harm. Once they do, the court will have to consider both the plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of those they would exclude. Notably, the majority offers no limiting principle to the permission it grants allowing one club to discriminate. In the meantime, we are not free to contort our standing jurisprudence in order to prematurely reach the merits and we ought not do so in a case of this magnitude before the record has been developed and tested.

Commission Recommends Changes In Australian State's Anti-Discrimination Laws

On Aug. 16, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia sent to Parliament its 297-page Final Report on its Review of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) (full text). The Report makes 163 recommendations for changes in Western Australia's anti-discrimination laws. In connection with the Act's ban on discrimination based on religious conviction, the Report's Recommendation 51 provides:

Religious conviction should be defined in the Act. It should be defined as:
• having a religious conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation;
• engaging in religious activity;
• appearance or dress required by, or symbolic of, the person’s religious conviction;
• the cultural heritage and distinctive spiritual practices, observances, beliefs and teachings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• engaging in the cultural heritage and distinctive spiritual practices, observances, beliefs and teachings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• not having a religious conviction, belief, opinion or affiliation; and
• not engaging in religious activity.

The word religious should not be defined.

The Report also makes recommendations relating to discrimination on the basis of gender identity, sex characteristics and sexual orientation. It makes extensive recommendations on religious exceptions to anti-discrimination rules.

Christian Schools Australia issued a press release criticizing the Report.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Suit By Fellowship Of Christian Athletes On High School Rules

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education. In the case, a California federal district court upheld a high school's non-discrimination policy for recognized student groups that precluded Fellowship of Christian Athletes from requiring its leaders to agree with and live in accordance with the group's Christian beliefs. (See prior posting.)

Southwest Flight Attendant Fired Over Anti-Abortion Social Media Posts Wins $5.1M Verdict

One Mile At A Time reports on a jury verdict handed down last Thursday:

After a roughly five year legal battle, a former Southwest flight attendant has been awarded damages over being fired from the airline. Southwest claims that the flight attendant violated the company’s social media policy with her public and offensive anti-abortion posts, and she was also accused of harassing the union president, after union dues were used to attend a rally in Washington DC.

The article explains: 

 A federal jury in Texas has sided with the former Southwest flight attendant, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against for her sincerely held religious beliefs. Furthermore, the jury found that the union did not fairly represent her and retaliated against her for expressing her views.

If this stands, Carter will be awarded $5.3 million, including $4.15 million from Southwest Airlines and $1.15 million from Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556. This consists primarily of punitive damages, but also consists of some back pay from the airline.

Jewish School Lacks Standing In Suit Claiming Religious Discrimination

In Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkston, (SD NY, July 12, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit under RLUIPA and federal civil rights laws brought by an Orthodox Jewish school ("ABY") against a New York town and a citizens group.  The suit alleged that the defendants, motivated by discrimination against Orthodox Jews, prevented the school from closing the purchase of a building owned by Grace Baptist Church. The court said in part:

... ABY fails to sufficiently establish that its claims based on the denial of the building permit application are ripe such that it suffered an “actual, concrete injury” because the ZBA never issued a final decision on ABY’s appeal and variance application. In other words, the ZBA’s nonfinal decision here does not “give rise to an injury that is sufficiently concrete and particularized to satisfy Article III.”...

... ABY fails to sufficiently allege how the Town Defendants’ conduct “constrained or influenced” GBC’s decision to stop agreeing to amend the contract and to terminate it on May 16, 2019.... Accordingly, the Court concludes that ABY has failed to sufficiently establish standing for its second alleged injury in fact with respect to the Town Defendants’ conduct. Consequently, the Court dismisses all of ABY’s claims against the Town Defendants and its § 1985 conspiracy claim against all Defendants....

Jewish Couple Lacks Standing To Challenge Tennessee Law Allowing Christian Foster Care Agency To Deny Services

In Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (TN Chanc., June 27, 2022), a Tennessee state 3-judge panel sitting under a special provision of Tennessee law that applies to constitutional challenges, held 2-1 that a Jewish couple who were denied foster-parent training by a state-funded Christian child placement agency lack standing to challenge a Tennessee law permitting faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services that violate their religious convictions. The standing decision was based on the fact that the state Department of Children's Services ultimately provided training directly to the couple, rather than the couple obtaining it through a private agency. (See prior related posting.) Americans United issued a press release on the case.

Britain's Employment Appeals Tribunal Rules Against Doctor Who Refused To Use Preferred Pronouns For Transgender Individuals

In Mackereth v. Department for Work and Pensions, (EAT, June 29, 2022), Britain's Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected a Christian doctor's claim that the policy of his government agency employer requiring him, as a disability benefits assessor, to refer to transgender claimants by their preferred pronoun amounted to illegal discrimination and harassment. While disagreeing with some of the conclusions of the Employment Tribunal (ET) below, the 61-page opinion which turns on doctrines developed under Britain's Equality Act, accepts the ultimate conclusion of the ET.  The Appellate decision is summarized by an article in Personnel Today which says in part:

Mackereth’s beliefs are based on what the bible says in Genesis 1:27; that we are born male and female and that a person cannot change their sex or gender. This belief conflicted with DWP’s policies....

...[T]he EAT ruled that Mackereth’s belief is protected under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act. Nevertheless, the judgment notes his belief could be deemed offensive....

... Justice Eady stated that the employment tribunal had properly taken account of the context in which Mackereth had expressed his beliefs and had carefully evaluated DWP’s concerns with them being expressed in his role.

The judgment says: “Given the particular context, it could not be said that the ET had erred in finding the measures adopted by the respondents were necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate focus on the needs of potentially vulnerable service users, and on the risks to those individuals and, in consequence, to the respondents.

New Jersey Township Settles RLUIPA Zoning Case With DOJ

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that a proposed Consent Order (full text) has been filed with a New Jersey federal district court in United States v. Township of Jackson, (D NJ, filed 6/15/2022). According to the Justice Department:

[The order] would resolve a lawsuit the United States filed in May 2020 alleging that the Township and Planning Board passed zoning ordinances that broadly prohibited religious schools and banned schools with dormitories, both of which are important to providing religious education within the Orthodox Jewish community. The complaint alleged that the intent of the ordinances was to prevent Orthodox Jewish schools from opening in the Township and thereby dissuade members of that community from living in or moving to Jackson....

The consent order requires Jackson Township to repeal the remaining active discriminatory ordinance and replace it with an ordinance that will allow religious elementary and secondary schools, religious higher learning institutions and religious residential schools. The consent order also requires that the new zoning ordinance treat religious schools equally with non-religious institutions that operate in the Township.

Also, the Township must pay a $45,000 civil penalty and pay $150,000 into a settlement fund.

High School Rules Barring Religious Requirements For Christian Student Organization Leaders Is Upheld

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, June 1, 2022), a California federal district court upheld a high school's non-discrimination policy for recognized student groups that precluded Fellowship of Christian Athletes from requiring its leaders to agree with and live in accordance with the group's Christian beliefs. In rejecting challenges to the policy, the court said in part:

[P]olicies meant “to ensure that the school’s resources are open to all interested students without regard to special protected classifications” are similar to the antidiscrimination laws intended to ensure equal access that the Supreme Court has concluded are viewpoint and content neutral.... The fact that the Policy allows clubs to set “non-discriminatory criteria” but not criteria based on religion, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications does not mean the Policy aims at the suppression of speech....

Plaintiffs have not shown that the Policy, as written, clearly violates their right to free exercise of their religion. The District’s Policy applies to all ASB student clubs. It does not “impose special disabilities” on Plaintiffs or other religious groups, but instead affects those groups in ways incidental to the general application of the Policy....

Virginia Governor Signs Act Broadly Defining "Religion" In Civil Rights Laws

On Friday, Virginia Governor Glen Younkin signed House Bill 1063 (full text) which defines "religion" as used in the state's anti-discrimination laws as:

"Religion" means all aspects of religious observance, practice, or belief.

ADF issued a press release on the new law.

Christian Flight Attendants Sue After Being Fired For Their Posted Views On LGBTQ Rights

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by two Alaska Air flight attendants who allege, under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws, illegal religious discrimination, hostile work environment, workplace harassment and retaliation.  The flight attendants were fired after they posted on an internal employee message board their opposition to the Airline's support for the federal Equality Act which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as groups protected against workplace discrimination. According to the complaint (full text) in Brown v. Alaska Airlines Inc., (WD WA., filed 5/17/2022):

3.... Marli and Lacey felt compelled by their Christian faith to post one comment each, asking about the impact of the Equality Act on civil rights for religion and women in the workplace.

4. Alaska Airlines responded to Marli and Lacey’s posts by immediately removing Marli and Lacey from their flight schedules, terminating their employment, and disparaging their religious expression and beliefs as “discriminatory,” “hateful,” and “offensive.”

5. When Marli and Lacey—both union members—faced termination because of their religious practices and beliefs, AFA failed to effectively represent them, ignoring civil rights laws prohibiting both employers and unions from discriminating on the basis of religion.

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

Baseball Team Scout Sues For Religious Exemption From Team's COVID Vaccine Mandate

Yesterday suit was filed in a D.C. federal district court by a scout for the Washington Nationals baseball team who was denied an accommodation for his religious objections to the baseball club's COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) in Gallo v. Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC, (D DC, filed 4/20/2022), claims discrimination on the basis of religion and disability. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

British Tribunal Rejects Complaint Of Muslim Employee Over Use Of "Allahu Akbar" In Security Test

In Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd., (EAT, April 7, 2022), the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an Employment Tribunal's dismissal of an Equality Act religious harassment complaint brought by a Muslim employee of the Heathrow Express train service. At issue was the conduct of a Heathrow Airport employee who duties involved carrying out security checks. According to the Tribunal:

[T]his involved creating and leaving suspicious objects to test how security officers responded to them.  In August 2017 it carried out a test using a bag containing a box, some electric cabling and, visible at the top, a piece of paper with the words “Allahu Akbar” written in Arabic. 

The Tribunal below held:

We conclude that in the circumstances that existed at the time it was not reasonable for the claimant to take offence at this incident. He should have understood that in adding this phrase Mr Rutherford’s team were not seeking to associate Islam with terrorism - instead they were seeking to produce a suspicious item based on possible threats to the airport.

In affirming the Employment Tribunal, the appellate court said in part:

It is not said, on appeal, that the tribunal should have concluded that these words had been chosen gratuitously with the deliberate purpose of causing upset....

We understand that a strand of the claimant’s case was that the use of this phrase was particularly insensitive, and offensive to him, not merely because it referenced Islam, but because of the sacred nature and significance of this particular phrase in religious observance.  While we do not accept that it was perverse not to regard the conduct of the second respondent as amounting in itself to the stereotyping of Muslims generally as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, we do understand that he also says that, because such stereotyping is a significant and serious blight on the lives of Muslims, the use of these words in this context was particularly charged for him, more than, say, the use of an animal-rights slogan co-opted by some terrorists would be for a vegan.  However, we cannot say that these features point to the conclusion that the tribunal could only properly have found that the claimant’s perception that the conduct had the effects on him of the kind referred to in section 26(1)(b) was a reasonable one.

Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.

Seventh Day Adventist Can Proceed With Title VII Suit

In Weston v. Sears, (SD OH, April 5, 2022), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff, a Seventh Day Adventist, be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis with her Title VII claim for religious discrimination.  She was fired for failing, until after the end of her Sabbath, to return multiple phone calls from her manager. However plaintiff is required to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing charges with the EEOC or her state agency.