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.

Vaccine Objector Loses Challenge

In Marte v. Montefiore Medical Center, (SD NY, Oct. 12, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by a former Medical Center employee who sued after the Medical Center refused to provide her a reasonable accommodation when she refused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine which was required for all employees.  The court rejected her Title VII claim saying in part:

Plaintiff does not allege that she informed Defendant that she had a religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccination, or even that Defendant was aware that she has a religious objection to the vaccine; she pleads only that she told her employer she did not want the vaccine and asked for "a reasonable accommodation as defined by law." ... Defendant could not have discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her religious beliefs if Defendant was unaware of those beliefs....

Even if Plaintiff had pleaded a prima facie claim for religious discrimination, her argument is foreclosed by the Second Circuit's decision in We The Patriots. Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff's requested accommodation would qualify as an undue hardship because it required Defendant to violate the law.

The court also rejected her free exercise, equal protection and other challenges.

COVID Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Is Upheld

In Does v. Hochul, (ED NY, Sept. 30, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed challenges to New York's COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers brought by five employees with religious objections to the vaccine. In evaluating plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court concluded that the regulation, which contains no religious exemption, is subject only to rational basis review, saying in part:

The plaintiffs argue that the mandate is not neutral because it includes a medical exemption, and thus “treats religious exemptions less favorably than some nonreligious exemptions;” in the plaintiffs’ words, this “double standard is not a neutral standard.”... 

Section 2.61 is neutral on its face. It does not refer to religion at all, and applies to “all persons employed or affiliated with a covered entity” who could “potentially expose other covered personnel, patients or residents to” COVID-19; the only exception is for employees with medical conditions that qualify for a medical exemption...

The rule at issue in this case involves no “singling out” of religious employees. Indeed, Section 2.61 applies equally to all employees who can be vaccinated safely, regardless of their religious beliefs or practices, whether they have political objections to the vaccine, or question their efficacy or safety, or any of the many other reasons that people choose not to get vaccinated....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' Title VII challenge, saying in part:

The sole “accommodation” the plaintiffs seek—a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement— would impose an undue hardship on the Private Defendants because it would require them to violate state law.

City Employees Did Not Show Sincere Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (ND CA, Sept. 23, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by two city employees who objected on religious grounds to the city's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Neither Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. There are no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines contain fetal cells or are otherwise derived from murdered babies.... Feeling passionately about something or having a specific personal preference does not merit the status of a sincere religious belief....

The court denied a preliminary injunction under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Law, also concluding: 

It is well-settled law that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm for purposes of an injunction....

Police and Fire Fighters Sue Over COVID Vaccine Mandate

Suit was filed last week in a New Jersey federal district court by a group of seven police officers and firefighters who were denied a religious accommodation to excuse them from a COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) in Aliano v. Township of Maplewood, (D NY, filed 9/16/2022), contends that the denial violates Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. New Jersey 101.5 reports on the lawsuit.

Musicians Sue Over Denial Of Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate

A Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court by three musicians who have religious objections to COVID vaccines. They were placed on partial-paid leave by their private employer, an arts organization that operates the Naples Philharmonic, when they refused to comply with the employer's vaccine mandate.  The complaint (full text) in Leigh v. Artis-Naples, Inc., (MD FL, filed 9/21/2022), alleges in part:

Artis-Naples implemented an illegal policy that no exemption or accommodation would or could be granted to any employee who had to be present onsite to perform their job....

Artis-Naples irrationally and pretextually argues that accommodating unvaccinated employees who follow alternative preventative measures would place an “undue hardship” on its operations—specifically, that unvaccinated employees present “a direct threat” of infection to patrons and coworkers....

Florida law requires Artis-Naples to exempt Plaintiffs from the Mandate....

As a matter of law, it can never be an “undue hardship” for an employer to comply with the state law and public policy.

Employees Fired For Religious Refusal Of COVID Vaccine Bring Title VII Suit

Four former employees of a continuing care retirement community filed suit in an Alabama federal district court last week claiming that they were wrongly fired for refusing the COVID vaccine on religious grounds.  The 105-page complaint (full text) in Hamil v. Acts Retirement-Life Communities, Inc., (SD AL, filed 9/15/2002), contends that plaintiffs were subjected to a hostile work environment, harassment, and wrongful termination based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. They were denied religious exemptions, or had previously granted religious exemptions rescinded. According to the complaint:

Such conduct was undertaken to preserve Defendants' exorbitant sums of monetary assistance in the form of government grants, coronavirus relief funds, and Medicare and Medicaid funds....

In the case at hand, the crux of the issue is the unlawful employment practices undertaken by Defendant and not the constitutional validity of any vaccine mandate....

The complaint contains lengthy descriptions of plaintiffs' religious beliefs and alleges various violations of Title VII as well as numerous state law claims. 1819News reports on the lawsuit.

7th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Entitled To Religious Exemption From Strip Searches By Transgender Guards

In West v. Radtke, (7th Cir., Sept. 16, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim inmate's rights under RLUIPA were violated when prison authorities refused to exempt him from strip searches conducted by transgender men. Wisconsin first argued that the inmate, Rufus West, should not care that he is searched by a transgender inmate because Islam equally condemns exposing the naked body to any guard, male or female. The court responded that:

The substantial-burden inquiry does not ask whether West’s understanding of his faith obligations is correct.

Prison authorities went on to argue that the burden on West's religious exercise was justified by the state's compelling interest in complying with the anti-discrimination requirements of Title VII which bars discrimination against its transgender guards. The Court said, however:

The prison offers no argument under established Title VII doctrine that exempting West from cross-sex strip searches would inflict an adverse employment action on its transgender employees....

The prison’s Title VII argument would fail even if it could show that exempting West from cross-sex strip searches would lead to an adverse employment action. Title VII permits sex-based distinctions in employment where sex “is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of [a] particular business or enterprise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)....

Sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for performing strip searches of prisoners with sincere religious objections to cross-sex strip searches.

The Court also rejected the prison's equal protection defense. It remanded for further development the inmate's 4th Amendment claims. 

Postal Worker Seeks Supreme Court Modification Of Title VII Precedents On Reasonable Accommodation

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy. In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that accommodating a Sunday sabbath observer by allowing him not to report for work on Sunday would cause an "undue hardship" to the U.S. Postal Service.  Thus, failure to grant that accommodation did not violate Title VII. (See prior posting.) Appellants are asking the Supreme Court to repudiate the definition of "undue hardship" which the Court approved in its 1977 decision in TWA v. Hardison. First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Maine's COVID Vaccine Mandate, Without Religious Exemption, Is Upheld

 In Lowe v. Mills, (D ME, Aug. 18, 2022), a Maine federal district court rejected challenges by seven healthcare workers to Maine's COVID vaccination requirement for healthcare workers. No religious exemption is available; medical exemptions are available. The court rejected plaintiffs Title VII religious discrimination claim, saying in part:

[I]f the Hospital Defendants had granted the sole accommodation sought by the Plaintiffs, it would result in an undue hardship by subjecting the Hospital Defendants to the imposition of a fine and the “immediat[e] suspension of a license.”

The court also rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment Free Exercise claims, saying in part:

In the context of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the medical exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine’s core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health—for example, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination requirements—to the same extent that it burdens religious beliefs. Thus, the medical exemption available as to all mandatory vaccines required by Maine law does not reflect a value judgment unfairly favoring secular interests over religious interests. As an integral part of the vaccine requirement itself, the medical exemption for healthcare workers does not undermine the vaccine mandate’s general applicability.

No Church Autonomy Defense To Catholic Organization's Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (D MD, Aug. 3, 2022), a Maryland federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff who was denied spousal health insurance coverage for his same-sex husband. Rejecting a church-autonomy defense, the court said in part:

CRS insists that any judicial inquiry into this case inevitably requires an inquiry into matters of Catholic faith and doctrine. This is not so; this case concerns a social service organization's employment benefit decisions regarding a data analyst and does not involve CRS's spiritual or ministerial functions.

The court held that Catholic Relief Services violated Title VII, and that the exemption in Title VII for religious organizations only applies to discrimination by them on the basis of religion. It also held that RFRA does not provide a defense because it applies only to claims against the government. The court also found no First Amendment violation, saying in part:

Our Constitution's solicitousness of religious exercise is not carte blanche for any religious institution wishing to place itself beyond the reach of any neutral and generally applicable law. This court need not engage in a strict scrutiny analysis that would apply if a truly comparable secular institution were being treated favorably compared to CRS.

The court went on to find violations of the federal and state Equal Pay Acts, and ordered certification to the state court of a question of coverage by Maryland's Fair Employment Practices Act.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal Of Race and National Origin Discrimination Claim

In Chris v. Kang, (D OR, July 26, 2022), an Oregon federal district court dismissed a claim of race and national origin discrimination brought by plaintiff who was not hired as the Worship Pastor of Village Baptist Church.  Plaintiff claimed he was not hired because he was not a native English speaker, was said to be unfamiliar with American culture and to speak with an accent. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to both Title VII and state employment discrimination claims, insulating from judicial review the church's decisions on who should be its ministers.

DOJ Sues City For Failure To Accommodate Seventh Day Adventist Employee

A Title VII lawsuit was filed last week by the Justice Department on behalf of a newly-hired Seventh Day Adventist detention officer against the city of Lansing, Michigan. The complaint (full text) in United States v. City of Lansing, Michigan, (WD MI, filed 7/15/2022) alleges that the city "failed to provide [the officer] with a reasonable accommodation or to show undue hardship and terminated her employment because she could not work from Friday sundown through Saturday sundown due to her religious observance of the Sabbath..." The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Enjoins DOE and EEOC From Enforcing LGBT Anti-Discrimination Interpretations Because Of Procedural Issues

 In State of Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Education, (ED TN, July 15, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court enjoined the Department of Education and the EEOC from enforcing against 20 states that are plaintiffs in the case documents interpreting Title IX and Title VII as including prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. According to the court:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants’ guidance documents are legislative rules and that the guidance is invalid because Defendants failed to comply with the required notice and comment procedures under the APA.

CNN reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Company Over Requiring Employees To Attend Prayer Meetings

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against North Carolina-based Aurora Pro Services. It explained:

[T]he company required all employees to attend daily employer-led Christian prayer meetings. The meetings were conducted by the company owner and included Bible readings, Christian devotionals, and solicitation of prayer requests from employees. Aurora’s owner took roll before some of the meetings and reprimanded employees who did not attend. When a construction manager asked to be excused from the prayer portion of the meetings in the fall of 2020, the defendant company refused to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs (atheist), cut his pay, and fired him. A few months later, in January 2021, Aurora terminated a customer service representative who stopped attending the prayer meetings because the meetings conflicted with her religious beliefs (agnostic).

Employees' Religious Objections To Apron Logo May Support Title VII Claim

In EEOC v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, (ED AR, June 23, 2022), an Arkansas federal district court refused to dismiss a religious discrimination claim brought by the EEOC against Kroger 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 new campaign emphasizing the company's four service-based commitments. The employees insisted that the symbol promotes the LGBT community. Their religious beliefs prevent them from promoting homosexuality which they believe is a sin. The court said in part:

Kroger acknowledges that the Court can't sit in judgment of the objective reasonableness of a sincerely held religious belief ...  [But] according to Kroger ... it is objectively unreasonable to believe that the Our Promise symbol supports and promotes the LGBTQ community. Thus, Kroger concludes, there is no conflict at all between Lawson and Rickerd's religious beliefs and Kroger's dress code. ...

Kroger slices things far too thin by isolating the "religious belief" question from the "conflict" question.... [T]hose questions are too bound up with each other for Kroger's theory to be correct. Subjecting the "conflict" question to an objective-reasonableness review would inevitably subject some aspect of the employee's religious beliefs, practices, or observances to the same standard. And we know that isn't allowed....

In any event, even if Kroger was right ..., there's evidence in the record that would allow (but not require) a rational juror to conclude... that Lawson and Rickerd reasonably believed that wearing the multi-colored heart would communicate support for and promotion of the LGBTQ community....

Regardless of what Kroger intended for its Our Promise symbol to mean, Lawson and Rickerd object to being seen as supporting or promoting homosexuality. So, the real question would be whether it was objectively reasonable for Lawson and Rickerd to believe that other people (i.e., customers) would think that the multi-colored heart was a pro-LGBTQ symbol. And a rational juror could go either way on that question.

Title VII 90-Day Right To Sue Runs From Receipt Of Email, Not From Opening It

In Paniconi v. Abington Hospital- Jefferson Health, (ED PA, May 24, 2022), plaintiff, a 62-year-old white woman and a born-again Christian had filed a race and religious discrimination claim against her employer with the EEOC.  The EEOC sent both plaintiff and her attorney a right-to-sue letter on Sept. 8, 2021, but sent it through an e-mail which merely told the recipients to check their EEOC portal for an important document.  The e-mail to the attorney did not list the client's name or indicate that the important document was a right-to-sue letter. Title VII requires suit to be filed within 90 days after receipt of the right-to-sue letter.  Plaintiff's attorney did not access the portal or download the letter until Sept. 13.  Suit was filed on December 8, which is 91 days after receipt of the e-mail.  The court dismissed the suit, rejecting the argument that the 90-day period should run from the date the attorney accesses the portal and downloads the letter. Instead it held that the 90-day period runs from the date the e-mail reaches the attorney's inbox. JD Supra reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Restaurant For Failing To Accommodate Employee's Church Attendance

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed suit against Del Frisco’s of Georgia, an Atlanta restaurant, for refusing to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. The EEOC alleges:

[T]he employee requested and was granted an accommodation of not working on Tuesday evenings and Sunday mornings so she could attend prayer and church services. Del Frisco’s scheduled the employee to work on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2019, in conflict with her existing religious accommodation and her need to attend prayer services that evening. The employee reminded her supervisors of her religious conflict, but she was not taken off the schedule. When the employee did not appear for work on that day, Del Frisco’s fired her.

3rd Circuit: Accommodation Of Sabbath Observer Would Create Undue Hardship For Postal Service

In Groff v. DeJoy, (3d Cir., May 25, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that accommodating a Sunday sabbath observer by allowing him not to report for work on Sunday would cause an "undue hardship" to the U.S. Postal Service.  Thus, failure to grant that accommodation did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In reaching that conclusion, the court agreed with those circuits that interpret "reasonable accommodation" under Title VII to mean an accommodation that totally eliminates the conflict between job requirements and religious practice. Judge Hardiman, dissenting, said that USPS had not satisfied its burden at the summary judgment stage to prove undue hardship, though it might be able to do so with more facts at trial. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]