Jehovah's Witness Title VII Claim Survives Summary Judgment Motion

In Shepherd v. Gannondale, (WD PA, Dec. 22, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendant, a Catholic residential care facility, in a suit by a former employee, a Jehovah's Witness, alleging religious discrimination.  Plaintiff Sharon Shepherd worked as a Fiscal Supervisor for defendant, Gannondale, until she was terminated or forced to resign.  Gannondale is a ministry of the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity which provided holistic and therapeutic care for young women placed by the court. It operated using the "Sanctuary Model of Trauma Informed Care" which involves "community meetings" which all clients and staff were required to attend. Shepherd stopped attending community meetings in the Fall of 2012 because she concluded they involved too much "anti-Christian content" for her to be a part of them.  She disagreed in general with the Sanctuary Model because it was not based on Biblical teachings.

The court concluded that Shepherd had stated a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on religion as well as a claim of failure to accommodate her desire to be excused from community meetings.  The court said in part:

Defendant appears to be invoking a sort of “esprit de corps” argument that has never been applied outside the context of the military and the police force....  No doubt every employer would argue that allowing even one employee to be excused from an organization-wide practice would undermine that practice as a whole and might encourage other employees to seek exemptions. Nevertheless, Title VII requires reasonable accommodation of employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs unless an employer demonstrates that such accommodation would subject it to an undue hardship..... Defendant’s argument would allow the undue hardship exception to swallow the rule of religious accommodation and it is rejected.

Jury Awards Catholic School Teacher Fired For In Vitro Fertilization Damages of $1.95M

The Fort Wayne (IN) Journal Gazette reports that a federal jury last Friday awarded former Catholic school teacher Emily Herx $1.95 million in damages in her Title VII sex discrimination claim against the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Herx's teaching contract was not renewed after she became pregnant through in vitro fertilization. The Catholic Church considers in vitro fertilization immoral, and the Diocese argued that Herx had agreed to uphold Catholic teachings. Herx argued that the Diocese would not have refused to renew a male teacher's contract under the same conditions. While finding substantial actual damages, the jury awarded Herx only a nominal $1 in punitive damages.  It is likely that the Diocese will appeal the decision. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Wall of Separation for the lead.]

7th Circuit Rejects Appeal of Non-Final Order By Catholic Diocese Sued Over Firing of Teacher

In Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc., (7th Cir., Dec. 1, 2014), the 7th Circuit rejected on procedural grounds defendant's appeal from denial of its summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the employment discrimination suit against it. The district court ruled that a Catholic school teacher who was fired because she underwent in vitro feritilization-- a procedure inconsistent with Catholic teachings-- can move ahead with her claim of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The district court rejected various defenses raised by the diocese. (See prior posting.) The 7th Circuit held that the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case is not a final order and thus is not appealable.  The court held that the narrow exception for review of certain collateral orders does not apply to this case. The Diocese will be able to pursue its objections after a final order is issued in the case. The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette reports on the 7th Circuit's decision.

Collateral Estoppel Bars Title VII Religious Accommodation, But Not Retaliation, Claim

In Mathis v. Christian Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., (ED PA, Oct. 7, 2014), plaintiff Paul Mathis, an atheist, was fired from his position as a sheet metal installer when he insisted on covering with tape his employer company's mission statement printed on the back of his identification badge. The statement read in part: "This company is not only a business, it is a ministry. It is set on standards that are higher than man’s own. Our goal is to run this company in a way most pleasing to the lord...." Mathis claimed that the mission statement was an attempt by the company to force its religious ideology on its employees.

In this Title VII action, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that Mathis was barred by collateral estoppel from proceeding with his Title VII claim of failure to accommodate his religious beliefs. In a prior state court worker's compensaton proceeding, the court held that Mathis had not shown any actual conflict between a sincere religious belief and the employer's requirement, nor had he requested an accommodation. Thefederal district court went on to hold, however, that Mathis was not barred by collateral estoppel from moving ahead with his claim under Title VII for unlawful retaliation against him for opposing what he saw to be religious discrimination.

Philadephpia Schools Settle Religious Accommodation Suit With Justice Department

The Justice Department announced Monday that it has reached a settlement with the School District of Philadelphia in a Title VII religious accommodation lawsuit that it filed in March. (See prior posting.)  At issue is the school district's October 2010 policy change which barred a Muslim school police officer from wearing a beard longer than one-quarter inch. Under the settlement, the school district will adopt a revised appearance and attire policy for police officers that will allow them to apply for a religious accommodations. The school district will also pay damages to two employees, expunge disciplinary items from their files, and will train supervisors on religious accommodation issues.

Catholic School Teacher Can Pursue Title VII Claim After Firing For In Vitro Fertilization

In Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, (ND IN, Sept. 3, 2014), Emily Herx, a former teacher at a Catholic school, sued under Title VII and the Americans With Disabiliteis Act after the diocese refused to renew her teaching contract because she became pregnant through in vitro fertilization. The Catholic Church considers in vitro fertilization immoral.  The court granted the Diocese's motion to dismiss the ADA claim becuase no jury could reasonably find that she lost her job because of her infertility (her claimed disability).  Instead it was because of her treatment for her disability. The court however refused to dismiss Herx's Title VII sex discrimination claim.  First it concluded that the ministerial exception doctrine did not apply because Herx was not a "minister."  It then went on to hold:

while a jury could find that a gender-neutral rule against in vitro fertilization prompted her nonrenewal, a jury also could find that a male teacher’s contract would have been renewed under the same circumstances.

The Fort Wayne Gazette reports on the decision.

Fired Buddhist Employee Sues Claiming Failure To Accommodate Religious Beliefs

Courthouse News Service yesterday reported on a Title VII  religious discrimination lawsuit filed in Texas federal district court by the former director of marketing communications for a wireless network services company. Plaintiff Jef Mindrup, a Buddhist, claims he was fired because he refused to comply with a request by the company's co-founder that he add Biblical verses to the company's daily newsletter. His lawsuit alleges that the company "fail[ed] to accommodate plaintiff on the basis of his religion by requiring him to proselytize the Christian religion, a religion other than his own."

Employer Offered Reasonable Accommodation To Muslim Employee For Noontime Prayer

In Farah v. A-1 Careers, (D KA, Nov. 20, 2013), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a claim by a Muslim former employee of a temporary staffing agency that the agency unreasonably failed to accommodate his need to pray at noontime. The court held:

Defendants reasonably accommodated Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by offering to let him go off-site daily for his noon prayers. Accordingly, Defendants were not required to consider other proposals and need not show that Plaintiff’s alternative proposals would result in undue hardship....  But assuming, arguendo, the need to do so, the Court finds undue hardship is an independent reason to grant Defendants summary judgment.

The court also concluded that plaintiff had not been constructively discharged.

Consent Decree In EEOC Suit Against Car Dealership That Refused To Hire Sikh

The EEOC announced yesterday the entry of a consent decree in a suit against a New Jersey car dealership for refusing to hire a Sikh man as a sales associate because his religiously-required beard did not meet the company's dress code. The decree in EEOC v. United Galaxy Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Lexus, (D NJ), orders the dealership to pay $50,000 in damages for failing to reasonably accommodate Gurpreet Kherha's religious exercise. The decree also enjoins future discrimination, requires anti-discrimination training of staff, and posting of related information.

NYPD's Grooming Rule Violates Free Exercise Rights of Orthodox Jewish Officer

In Litzman v. New York City Police Department, (SD NY, Nov. 15, 2013), Fishel Litzman, a member of the Chabad Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish movement, was accepted into the NYPD Police Academy and sworn in as a probationary police officer. He sued when his request for a religious accommodation to allow him to wear a one-inch long beard was denied and he was fired for continuing to wear his beard. NYPD policy allowed for medical and religious exceptions to the Department's no-beard rule, but only for beards that do not exceed one millimeter in length. A New York federal district court held that while the police department had not violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to accommodate Litzman's religious exercise, it did violate his 1st Amendment free exercise rights and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The NYPD prevailed under Title VII because it carried its burden of showing that an accommodation would create "undue hardship." The New York City Human Rights Law similarly requires accommodation, but has a definition of "undue hardship" that creates a much higher hurdle for the employer.  NYPD failed to meet that test. Analyzing plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, the court concluded that strict scrutiny should be applied:

Here, the undisputed record demonstrates that de facto exemptions to the one-millimeter rule abound. The ... NYPD provides temporary exemptions to police officers who grow beards beyond the one-millimeter limit for special occasions, such as religious holidays, weddings, and funerals.... Defendants also admit that the NYPD has police officers with beards in excess of one-millimeter in length, not only because of formal exemptions due to undercover assignments, but also because the NYPD does not always enforce its personal appearance standards....  Because there is evidence that the NYPD exercises discretion with respect to a facially neutral rule in a discriminatory fashion, strict scrutiny is appropriate.

New York Daily News reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Remands Sikh's RFRA Challenge To Ban On Kirpan In Federal Building

In Tagore v. United States, (5th Cir., Nov. 13, 2013), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Title VII religious discrimination claim by a Sikh employee of the Internal Revenue Service who lost her job after she insisted on wearing her kirpan into her federal office building. Federal law (18 USC Sec. 930) prohibits weapons with blades over 2.5 inches long in federal building. The court said that: "An employer need not accommodate an employee’s religious practice by violating other laws."

However the court remanded for reconsideration of plaintiff's RFRA claim in light of a Policy Directive issued by the Federal Protective Service after the case concluded in the district court. (See prior posting.) That Directive permits granting of exemptions in federal buildings for Sikh articles of faith, and thus possibly undercuts the government's argument regarding the need for uniform application of the weapons ban.  The appeals court also held that, contrary to the district court's conclusion, plaintiff had created a genuine issue of material fact as to her sincere religious belief in wearing a 3-inch bladed kirpan.  [Thanks to Blog From the Capital for the lead.]