Court Denies Class Certification In Title VII Religious Accommodation Suit Against GM

In Robinson v. General Motors Company, (ND TX, Oct. 21, 2015), a Texas federal district court  refused to certify as a class action a Title VII suit seeking to require General Motors to allow unpaid days off for observance of holy days by employees whose religious beliefs prohibit them from working or receiving compensation (e.g., vacation pay) on their holidays.  The suit was brought by two employees, one a member of the Tyler Sabbath Fellowship and the other a member of a Messianic Jewish congregation. The court dismissed the suit, saying:

Here, the Court has no way to ascertain the class under Plaintiffs’ definition since the requested class includes any GM employee who might request unpaid religious leave in the future....  Such a class is not adequately defined or ascertainable.

However plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint.  Reuters reports on the decision.

6th Circuit: School Had Non-Retaliatory Reason To Fire Imam From Instructional Assistant Job

In Haji v. Columbus City Schools, (6th Cir., July 16, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that while a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation was made out by a Somali Muslim imam who was fired from his position as an instructional assistant in the Columbus, Ohio public schools, his suit should be dismissed because the school system showed a non-retaliatory reason for his termination. Plaintiff Abdurahman Haji claims that he was dismissed because of remarks he made at his mosque-- captured on a YouTube video-- criticizing the school system for exposing Muslim students to the polytheistic belief system of Greek mythology.  However the court found that the dismissal was justified because of Haji's leaving early on Friday's to attend mosque services, in violation of the school's attendance policy which was enforced against Haji after the controversial video was discovered.  The court also rejected Haji's Title VII religious discrimination claim growing out of his termination and earlier disciplinary action taken against him for his criticism of actions by students that he considered inconsistent with Islam. Middle East Forum blog discussed the decision.

EEOC Holds That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Covered Under Title VII

In a July 15 decision (full text), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reversed and remanded the Federal Aviation Administration's rejection of an employment discrimination complaint by an FAA employee who claimed he was denied a promotion because he is gay.  In a precedent setting opinion, the EEOC held that:

allegations of discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex within the meaning of Title VII.

In reaching its conclusion, the EEOC drew analogies to cases in which courts have held that discrimination on the basis of an employee's association with persons of another race amounts to racial discrimination. It added that sexual orientation discrimination is necessarily based on gender stereotypes. The EEOC also rejected the argument that unsuccessful efforts to obtain passage of legislation in Congress explicitly adding sexual orientation to Title VII should lead it to reject the discrimination claim here. The Washington Blade and Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy have more on the decision.

Meanwhile the EEOC features a posting on its website titled What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers. 

EEOC Files One, Settles One, Religious Discrimination Suit

The EEOC yesterday filed a lawsuit against UPS, the nation's largest parcel delivery service charging religious discrimination.  According to the EEOC press release:

United Parcel Service, Inc. prohibits male employees in customer contact or supervisory positions from wearing beards or growing their hair below collar length. According to EEOC's complaint, since at least 2004, UPS has failed to hire or promote individuals whose religious practices conflict with its appearance policy and has failed to provide religious accommodations to its appearance policy at facilities throughout the United States.

Also yesterday, the EEOC announced the settlement of a lawsuit brought against a Dunkin' Donut franchisee in Asheville, North Carolina. The company's plant manager offered a donut maker position to Darrell Littrell, a Seventh-Day Adventist, but then withdrew the offer when Littrell told the manager that he could not begin work on Friday afternoon because it conflicted with his Sabbath. Under the settlement, the company will pay Littrell $22,000 in damages, and will enter a 5-year consent decree barring religious discrimination and requiring policy changes, employee training and reporting.

Suit Alleges Discrimination Against Same-Sex Spouse Constitutes "Sex" Discrimination

Following the Supreme Court's recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States, many commentators noted that same-sex couples may still face discrimination because sexual orientation discrimination is not explicitly prohibited under federal law nor under the law of a number of states.  Yesterday in a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, a Wal-Mart employee is seeking a ruling that discrimination against a same-sex spouse is discrimination on the basis of "sex", a classification that is covered by state and federal anti-discrimination laws. At issue is Wal-Mart's policy of denying spousal health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of eligible employees.  If the theory is successful, it could lay the groundwork for public accommodation suits, as well as employment discrimination ones.

The complaint (full text) in Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (D MA, filed 7/14/2015), alleges that the EEOC issued a right to sue letter, finding that the refusal to add plaintiff's same-sex spouse to her health insurance policy constituted discrimination on the basis of sex since such coverage would have been provided if she were married to a man rather than another woman. The suit alleges that denial of benefits violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law because benefits would have been provided if plaintiff were married to someone of the opposite sex or if she were a different sex than her spouse. National Law Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Religious Discrimination Suit Filed After Engineer Fired For Anti-Gay Comment on Company's Intranet

In a federal lawsuit filed last week, a fired Ford Motor Co. engineer, claiming religious discrimination and retaliation, sued for violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The complaint (full text) in Banks v. Rapid Global Business Solutions Inc., (ED MI, filed 7/10/2015) alleges that Banks, a Christian, who was working on assignment from Ford to RGBSI, Inc., was fired because of a critical comment he posted to an article on Ford's Intranet. The Intranet article celebrated an organization of Ford's LGBT employees. The offending comment said:

For this Ford Motor Company should be thoroughly ashamed.  Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit of no one.  This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote.  And yes-- this is historic-- but not in a good way.  Never in the history of mankind has a culture survived that promotes sodomy.  Heterosexual behavior creates life-- homosexual behavior leads to death.

Huffington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Employee Who Refused Work In Unit Performing Abortions Loses Title VII Suit

In Montgomery v. Cook County, (ND IL, July 1, 2015), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a medical center employee who was fired after she refused an assignment change that would require her to spend half her time in the reproductive health unit of the Planned Parenthood facility at which she was employed.  She objected on religious grounds to work in the unit that performed abortions, and said she understood from the time she was hired that this concern would be respected. The court held that plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that she was fired "because of" her religious beliefs.  The court conceded that "even if an employer does not intentionally discriminate against an employee, an employer may still be liable under Title VII for failure to accommodate the religious needs of its employees." However here, according to the court:

[Plaintiff] failed to allege any facts regarding whether a request to accommodate [her] beliefs was made... and whether Defendants tried to accommodate [them].... Based on these allegations, I cannot reasonably infer that Defendants failed to try to accommodate Plaintiff's religious beliefs to keep her employed.

It thus dismissed the discrimination claim without prejudice.

The court also rejected Plaintiff's retaliation claim, holding: "Plaintiff has neither plead that she engaged in protected activity nor alleged a substantial link between any protected expression and her termination."

Supreme Court GVR's Title VII Nursing Home Case After Abercrombie

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration an employment discrimination case whose result may be impacted by the court's recent decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores.  In Norbach v. Woodland Village Nursing Center, Inc., (Sup. Ct. June 8, 2015), (order list). the Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the 5th Circuit's judgment and remanded.  In the case, the 5th Circuit had dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination suit brought by a nursing home activities aide who was fired by the nursing home after she refused to pray the Rosary with a patient.  The court held that no evidence had been presented to the jury showing that the employer knew or reasonably should have known that her refusal was based on the aide's Jehovah's Witness religious beliefs. (See prior posting.)

Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., (Sup. Ct., June 1, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the 10th Circuit's holding on when employers must offer a reasonable accommodation for an employee's religious practices.  The 10th Circuit had held that Abercrombie & Fitch did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it failed to reasonably accommodate Samantha Elauf's need to wear a headscarf because Elauf had not informed the company that she wore the hijab for religious reasons and would need an accommodation. (See prior posting.)  In an opinion by Justice Scalia, 7 justices held:

Motive and knowledge are separate concepts. An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.

Thus, the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions....

A request for accommodation, or the employer’s certainty that the practice exists, may make it easier to infer motive, but is not a necessary condition of liability.

Justice Alito concurred only in the judgment, urging a different test for liability.  He concluded that Abercrombie is liable only if it had knowledge that Elauf wore her headscarf for religious reasons, but that there was sufficient evidence that Abercrombie had such knowledge that the court should not have granted summary judgment to defendants.

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that Abercrombie's actions did not amount to disparate treatment (or intentional discrimination):

Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf ’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf.... In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices. To be sure, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral Look Policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith. But that is a classic case of an alleged disparate impact.

Politico reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Says Required Conciliation Is Reviewable Prerequisite To EEOC Title VII Lawsuit

Yesterday in Mach Mining LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Sup. Ct., April 29, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the requirement in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the EEOC attempt conciliation before filing an employment discrimination lawsuit is a judicially enforceable prerequisite to suing. However the scope of review of whether the EEOC has met this requirement is narrow:

the EEOC must inform the employer about the specific allegation.... Such notice properly describes both what the employer has done and which employees ... have suffered as a result. And the EEOC must try to engage the employer in some form of discussion (whether written or oral), so as to give the employer an opportunity to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice. Judicial review of those requirements (and nothing else) ensures that the Commission complies with the statute. At the same time, that relatively barebones review allows the EEOC to exercise all the expansive discretion Title VII gives it to decide how to conduct conciliation efforts and when to end them.

The Court's unanimous opinion was written by Justice Kagan.  Wall Street Journal reported on the decision.

Jewish Sheriff's Office Employee Sues Alleging Religious Discrimination and Harassment

The Florida ACLU announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Jewish employee of the Collier County, Florida Sheriff's Office alleging religious discrimination and harassment.  The ACLU summarized the complaint:

In 2009, Mr. Newmark requested religious accommodations to allow him to observe the tenets of his Jewish faith, including being allowed to not shave his beard and wear a head covering, and to have a schedule that accommodated his observance of the Jewish Sabbath as well as religious holidays like Passover and Yom Kippur.

Mr. Newmark’s requests for accommodations were denied, he was demoted from his position as an officer within the department’s gang unit to a non-certified civilian position of jail technician, and a campaign of harassment began that included being referred to by Sheriff’s staff as “a hairy Jewish mother-[expletive],” and having a Nazi Iron Cross flag placed outside his cubicle.

In 2012 – by which time Mr. Newmark had become a member of the Hasidic sect... Mr. Newmark was retaliated against for filing a complaint with the EEOC and threatened that he would  be forced to shave his beard and cease wearing his yarmulke.

The complaint (full text) in Newmark v. Collier County Sheriff's Office, (MD FL, filed 4/27/2015), asks for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages for violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Fort Myers News-Press reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Title VII Constructive Discharge Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Green v. Donahoe, (Docket No. 14-613, review granted 4/27/2015) (Order List.) The petition for certiorari in the case frames the question presented:

Under federal employment discrimination law, does the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begin to run when an employee resigns, as five circuits have held, or at the time of an employer’s last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation, as three other circuits have held? 

In the case, the 10th Circuit (full text of opinion) held that the filing period begins to run at the date of the last discriminatory act. It said in part:

No policy reason, certainly not the policy behind recognition of constructive discharge claims as a means to provide appropriate relief to employees, commends itself as a ground for postponing the accrual of constructive-discharge claims until the employee leaves work...

SCOTUSBlog's case page links to filings in the case. While the case in which review was granted involves alleged racial discrimination. the Supreme Court's decision will also impact cases in which religious discrimination led to a constructive discharge.

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari In Title VII Case

Last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Macon v. J.C. Penney Co., (Docket No. 14-946, cert. denied 4/20/2015) (Order List.)  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Dec. 29, 2014 opinion (full text) affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII religious accommodation claim.  Plaintiff was fired when she refused to sign her company's Statement of Business Ethics because according to her Christian beliefs the Bible prohibited her from taking oaths or making promises. She also refused to sign a document titled Our Integrity Promise because it would prevent her from writing an autobiography that included her work experiences. BNA Daily Report for Executives (subscription required) reports on the denial of review.

Court Applies Title VII Religious Institution Exemption

In Newbrough v. Bishop Heelan Catholic Schools, (ND IA, Feb. 23, 2015), an Iowa federal magistrate judge held that the provision in Section 702 of the 1964 Civil Right Act that exempts religious institutions from Title VII's religious discrimination provisions applies to the termination of the chief financial officer of the Sioux City Catholic schools in an administrative restructuring.  The school system replaced the CFO, a Lutheran, with a newly-hired Catholic employee to fill the downgraded position. The court held that the religious institution exemption applies even though the CFO's duties were not religious in nature.  The court refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law religious discrimination claim. The Sioux City Journal reports on the decision.

Transcript Available For SCOTUS Arguments In Abercrombie & Fitch

The full transcript of this morning's Supreme Court arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores is now available from the Court's website. AP reports on the oral arguments in the Title VII religious accommodation case, saying that the Justices seemed to support prospective employee Samantha Elauf's position. At issue is the kind of notice that is needed to be given to an employer before its obligation to try to accommodate religious exercise is triggered.

SCOTUS Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Abercrombie & Fitch Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Docket No. 14-86).  In the case,  the 10th Circuit held that there is a strict notice requirement before an employer is required under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to accommodate religious beliefs. Merely wearing  hijab to an employment interview did not give notice that a job applicant wore it for religious purposes or needed religious accommodation because of its conflict with Abercrombie's clothing policy. (See prior posting.)  More than a dozen amicus briefs have been filed in the case. Links to all the briefs, as well as to a preview of the arguments, are available from SCOTUSblog.

No Title VII Liability For Refusing To Hire Applicant Who Will Not Furnish Social Security Number

In Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., (6th Cir., Jan. 28, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer is not liable under Title VII or Ohio's anti-discrimination law when the employer refuses to hire an applicant because the applicant has not furnished a social security number.  The Internal Revenue Code requires employers to collect and provide employees' social security numbers.  Plaintiff Donald Yeager disavowed his social security number for religious reasons-- he believes it is the "mark of the beast" referred to in the Book of Revelation. The court said:

Title VII does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if such accommodation would violate a federal statute.

Cleveland.com has details of the case beyond those set out by the 6th Circuit in its per curiam opinion.

Employee Who Objected To Biometric Scanning As Mark of the Beast Wins $150,000 Verdict

The Clarksburg Exponent Telegram reports that a jury in a West Virginia federal district court last Thursday awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages to a former employee of Consol Energy (the mining operation of Consolidation Coal Co.) in a Title VII suit charging failure to accommodate his Evangelical Christian religious beliefs. Beverly R. Butcher Jr., a laborer at the mine, objected to biometric hand scanning to track time and attendance, believing that it involves the Mark of the Beast forbidden in the Book of Revelation. The company however relied on a letter from the manufacturer of the hand scanner assuring that it does not assign the Mark of the Beast, and suggesting that objecting employees scan their left, instead of their right, hand.  The company refused other accommodations suggested by Butcher, and the EEOC sued on his behalf. (See prior posting.) In addition to the jury's damage award, the judge will still determine back and forward pay. Defendants plan an appeal.

UPDATE: The 4th Circuit affirmed the district court's award of damages in U.S. Equal employment Opportunity Commission v. Consol Energy, Inc., (4th Cir., June 12, 2017).

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a Title VII employment discrimination case.  The question presented in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC is whether and to what extent a court can enforce the EEOC’s statutorily required duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.  The transcript of the oral arguments is available from the Court's website. SCOTUSBlog's case page containing links to all the briefs in the case as well as to the 7th Circuit's opinion below is here. The Washington Post reports on the oral arguments.  While the case involves charges of gender discrimination, the result will impact religious discrimination cases as well.

Damage Award Against Diocese Reduced In In Vitro Fertilization Firing

In Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc., (ND IN, Jan. 12, 2015), a federal judge reduced a jury's verdict against a Catholic diocese in a Title VII sex discrimination case from $1.95 million to $543,803.  The case, involving a suit by a Catholic school teacher fired for becoming pregnant through in vitro  fertilization, has been widely followed.  The reduction is largely the result of applying a $300,000 statutory cap on punitive and most compensatory damages imposed in employment discrimination cases by 42 USC 1981a(b). Yesterday's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)