EEOC Suit Charging Failure to Accommodate Messianic Jewish Employee's Holidays Is Settled

The EEOC announced last week that Center One and Capital Management Services, two related companies, have settled a Title VII lawsuit that was brought by the EEOC and subsequently remanded for trial by the 3rd Circuit.  The suit charged failure to accommodate an employee's religious practices. The employee joined the case as a plaintiff.  According to the EEOC:

The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that in October 2016, a Center One employee, an adherent of Messianic Judaism, requested a reasonable accommodation of his religious belief requiring abstaining from work on religious observance days.... Center One refused to grant the employee a schedule modification to observe religious holidays because he was unable to provide a certification from a religious leader or religious organization supporting his request. Instead, the company imposed disciplinary points against the employee..., even after being informed he was unable to obtain the requested certification because he was not a member of a congregation, thereby forcing the employee to resign....

The parties subsequently agreed to settle the case before trial, and on Oct. 24, the federal court approved the 18-month consent decree resolving the litigation. In addition to paying $60,000 to the employee, Center One and Capital Management Services are prohibited going forward from unlawfully denying reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices, and they are specifically barred from requiring that employees provide a certification from a religious leader, organization, or group as a general precondition for obtaining religious accommodation....

6th Circuit Finds That Employee's Objections to Covid Testing Were Not Religious

 In DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, (6th Cir., Oct. 11, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by a former department manager at the University of Kentucky who was denied a religious accommodation that would exempt her from the University's policy that required weekly testing of employees who were not vaccinated against Covid. Plaintiff filed a suit claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. She alleged in part that the University's policy was designed to coerce her to get tested. the court said:

Such coercion, she explained, was “wrong” because “[t]rying to manipulate somebody into doing something to attain a result that you want by holding something over them” is “not right behavior.”...

DeVore drew no connection between her fairness conclusion and any “religious principle” she follows, leaving it simply to reflect her “personal moral code.”... DeVore’s “subjective evaluation” of the Policy against this rubric of “secular values” does not establish a religious conflict with the Policy.

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."

Court Refuses to Stay Discovery in Gay Teacher's Title VII Suit Against Catholic School

In Califano v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, (ED NY, Sept. 24, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to stay discovery in a Title VII sex discrimination suit brought by an openly gay math and English teacher at a Catholic elementary school. The court said in part:

... [A]t the motion to dismiss stage, “a [p]laintiff only has a minimal burden of alleging facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation.”...

Plaintiff has plainly satisfied this standard.  Here, Plaintiff never received any criticisms about his job performance.  Instead, the Complaint alleges he was terminated based exclusively on his sexual preference after Defendants saw a social media post of him kissing his partner— another male.  More importantly, there is direct evidence for the termination: Defendants’ own personnel alluded to his homosexuality as a reason for the termination....

... [T]he question of application of the ministerial exception is fact specific.  That said, resolution on a motion to dismiss would be inappropriate....

... Plaintiff’s duties are not as intertwined with religious doctrine.  He was not a rabbi, priest, or member of the clergy with formal doctrinal training.  Therefore, deciding his Title VII claim would not impinge on the church autonomy doctrine and Defendants’ defense fails.  And here, Defendants fail to point to demonstrate that they would have fired Plaintiff even in spite of his identifying as a homosexual male....  

Although the ministerial and church autonomy doctrines appear to be inapplicable to Plaintiff’s claim, at the very least, discovery is necessary to proceed with this case--namely to discern whether the exceptions even apply to Plaintiff’s role as a Math and English teacher here.

EEOC Rules on Accommodating Abortions and Barring Transgender Discrimination Burden Religious Exercise of Catholic Diocese

In Catholic Benefits Association v. Burrows, (D ND, Sept. 23, 2024), a North Dakota Catholic diocese and a Catholic organization supporting Catholic employers challenged rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission promulgated under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as well as Enforcement Guidance issued by the agency relating to discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  In the case, a North Dakota federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing against plaintiffs requirements that they accommodate employees' abortions or infertility treatments that are contrary to the Catholic faith. It also enjoined the EEOC from enforcing anti-harassment provisions in a way that would require plaintiffs to speak or refrain from speaking in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; require plaintiffs to use pronouns inconsistent with a person's biological sex; or allow person to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex. The court said in part:

It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America. It has been described as a post-Christian age.... One indication of this dire assessment may be the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.  

The current suit falls into a long line of cases that should be unnecessary in a country that was built on the concept of freedom of religion. Unfortunately, these cases are essential for faithful individuals where government mandates run counter to core religious beliefs. One would think after all this litigation, the government would respect the boundaries of religious freedom. Instead, it seems the goal may be to find new ways to infringe on religious believers’ fundamental rights to the exercise of their religions....

The CBA has detailed its sincerely held beliefs about human sexuality and procreation.... This belief includes a witness that these actions are immoral.... At the very least its actions would violate the retaliation provision because the employee would be fired for violating the Catholic faith by asking for an accommodation for the conduct at issue here. Because the interpretations of PWFA and Title VII threaten litigation for adhering to sincerely held beliefs, these guidelines and the underlying statutes place a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.

News From the States reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for the lead.] 

10th Circuit: School Administrator Fired Over Religious Comments Has Discrimination, But Not Retaliation, Claim

 In McNellis v. Douglas County School District, (10th Cir., Sept. 10, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims by a high school Assistant Principal/ Athletic Director, but reversed dismissal of his religious discrimination claims under Title VII and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.  Plaintiff Corey McNellis was fired after he complained about the depiction of Christians in an upcoming school play about the 1998 hate-motivated murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. The court concluded the McNellis's speech was not protected by the 1st Amendment because it was made in the course of performing his official duties. It also concluded the McNellis's complaints about being investigated because of his Christian beliefs were not the cause of his firing. In allowing plaintiff to proceed with his discrimination claims, the court said that plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Jail Guard's Required Training in Treatment of LGBTQI+ Inmates Did Not Violate His Free Exercise Rights

In Goodknight v. County of Douglas, (D OR, Aug. 6, 2024), an Oregon federal district court rejected religious discrimination claims brought by a county jail guard who objected to required LGBTQI Community Training. The training was impelled by the recently enacted federal Prison Rape Elimination Act.  According to the court:

Plaintiff alleges this Training required employees “to affirm and validate homosexual unions and the self-proclaimed ‘transgender,’ ‘non-binary,’ or ‘genderqueer’ identities of AICs and fellow employees.”...

Plaintiff concluded by confirming his believe that “PREA standards demands [sic] we deny, [sic] God, science, and the common sense verified by our very eyes. This is a Pandora’s box of perversion I refuse to help open. I appeal to you one last time, please repent of this sinful path for the sake of the county, inmates, and my fellow deputies....

Rejecting plaintiff's claims under Title VII and state law, the court said in part:

Despite Plaintiff’s attempt, intentionally or otherwise, to conflate private citizen cases with public employee cases, the fact that the dispute here concerned training regarding how Defendant processed and housed LGBTQI+ individuals—i.e., that the Training concerned how Defendant wanted Plaintiff to perform his basic job duties—demonstrates Plaintiff’s free speech claim necessarily fails. ... 

Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations, along with the Court’s own common sense, confirm that the speech here concerned nothing more than Plaintiff’s dispute with his supervisors over how to perform his job when dealing with certain AICs....

Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause when Defendant “lent it’s power to one side in a controversy over religious dogma – specifically, the controversy over whether what [sic] constitutes respectful treatment of persons who self-identify as LGBTQI+.”... This argument is meritless.  ...

Plaintiff’s attempt to conflate ‘government employers forcing their employees’ with “the government forcing its citizens’ ignores longstanding, black‐letter law recognizing that “[a] public employer ‘may impose restraints on the job-related speech of public employees that would be plainly unconstitutional if applied to the public at large.’”

Trans Woman Fired by Liberty University Sues

Suit was filed this week in a Virginia federal district court against Liberty University by a transgender woman who was fired from her position as an Apprentice at the IT Help Desk because she was undergoing gender transition treatment. The complaint (full text) in Zinski v. Liberty University, Inc., (WD VA, filed 7/29/2024), alleges that terminating plaintiff's employment violated Title VII's ban on sex discrimination. A press release from ACLU of Virginia elaborates on plaintiff's dismissal, saying in part:

Liberty University officials read a termination notice aloud to Ellenor citing “denying biological and chromosomal sex assigned at birth” as the basis for her termination, stating a conflict with Liberty’s Doctrinal Statement that names “denial of birth sex by self-identification with a different gender” as a “sinful act prohibited by God.” 

7th Circuit Gives Broad Interpretation of "Religious" Claims Under Title VII

In Passarella v. Aspirus, Inc., (7th Cir., July 29, 2024), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Scudder held that a request for a religious accommodation under Title VII may include secular elements. At issue were employees' requests for an exemption from the employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

At the pleading stage, an employee seeking an accommodation in the form of an exemption from an employer’s vaccine mandate must allege facts plausibly permitting an inference that some “aspect[]” of the request is based on the employee’s “religious observance and practice” or “belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). 

Applying the statutory language necessarily requires an exercise of judgment: the standard is not amenable to formulaic resolution like solving a math equation. To the contrary, its application requires a holistic assessment of the terms of the employee’s exemption request, with the controlling inquiry at the pleading stage being whether the employee plausibly based her vaccination exemption request at least in part on an aspect of her religious belief or practice.  

... An employee may object to an employer’s vaccine mandate on both religious and non-religious grounds—for example, on the view that receiving the vaccine would violate a religious belief and implicate health and safety concerns. Congress permitted this, as we see no other way to give effect to the breadth of its definition of “religion”—as covering “all aspects” of an employee’s religious observance, practice, and belief.... And, for its part, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in implementing this same definition, has likewise emphasized that a religious objection to a workplace requirement may incorporate both religious and secular reasons.... 

Judge Rovner dissented, saying in part:

I recognize that Dottenwhy, in the statements she submitted to Aspirus, invoked her rights as a Christian, said she had prayed about the matter and sought guidance from G-d, and expressed her conviction that “HE is with me on this decision.” ... Without more, such statements are not enough, in my view, to transform an otherwise secular objection to the vaccine into a religiously-based one.... I am not convinced that Congress meant to compel an employer to grant any requested accommodation that an employee has prayed about and has concluded that his or her G-d supports. If that were so, there would be almost no limit to the accommodations that an employer would have to entertain under Title VII’s ban on religious discrimination....

Passarella’s statement came somewhat closer to describing a religious basis for a vaccine exemption, but in the end, I believe that Aspirus correctly understood her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine to be secular rather than religious....

It cannot be enough to state a claim for a religious accommodation to assert that because one’s conscience is G-d given, any decision one reaches in their good conscience is necessarily inspired and endorsed by G-d, and therefore is religious in nature.

In Bube v. Aspirius Hospital, Inc., (7th Cir., July 29, 2024), a different panel of the 7th Circuit, with only Judge Scudder being on both, reversed the dismissal of claims by two employees for religious exemptions from a hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The court, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Scudder, said in part:

We have no trouble concluding that both of these requests are based at least in part on an aspect of the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. God “gave” Bube a “mind, body and soul” so that she feels obligated to avoid what she considers unsafe substances in order to remain healthy. And Hedrington was “created … perfectly” by God so that accepting a “risk[y]” vaccine would be a “sin.” ...

Scrutinizing the composition of these requests—especially at the pleading stage—runs counter to not only the broad language of Title VII but also the Supreme Court’s repeated warnings that the law requires a hands-off approach when it comes to defining and discerning the core limits of religious exercise.

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.

NY Sanitation Worker Can Move Ahead on Failure To Accommodate Anti-Vax Beliefs

Decisions on suits by individuals who were denied religious exemptions from now-rescinded Covid vaccine mandates are still being issued by the courts.  In Rizzo v. New York City Department of Sanitation, (SD NY, July 2, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII failure to accommodate claim (as well as similar state-law and local-law claims) brought by a New York City sanitation worker. The court rejected the city's arguments that the worker's objections were based on conscience, not religion. It also rejected, at least at this stage of the litigation, the city's argument that accommodation would impose an undue burden on the city.  The court also allowed plaintiff to move forward on his claim that the city failed to engage in cooperative dialogue as required by the New York City Human Rights Law.  However, the court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII disparate impact claim and his 1st Amendment Free Exercise claim.

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 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.

Catholic Bishops Sue EEOC Over Rules Implementing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Suit was filed last month in a Louisiana federal district court by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University of America and two Louisiana Catholic dioceses challenging rules adopted in April of this year by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  The Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation for employees in connection with pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. At issue in the recent lawsuit is the EEOC's inclusion of abortion as a related medical condition. The complaint (full text) in United States Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (WD LA, filed 5/22/2024) alleges in part:

The PWFA is not an abortion accommodation mandate. Rather, it fills a gap in federal employment law by ensuring pregnant women receive workplace accommodations to protect their pregnancies and their preborn children. Plaintiff United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) enthusiastically supported the law’s bipartisan passage. That support reflected the PWFA’s uncontroversial and laudable purpose, which is fully consistent with the Catholic Church’s belief that all human life is imbued with innate dignity and its goal of ensuring a fairer workplace for women. But EEOC has now shoehorned a mandate that employers across the country knowingly support abortion into a statute explicitly designed to protect the health and safety of preborn babies and their mothers.  

Worse, at the same time that it expands federal law into fraught areas, EEOC also insists on nullifying the explicit religious exemption that Congress wrote into the PWFA. In the PWFA, Congress imported Title VII’s religious exemption, which expressly allows employers to make employment decisions based on sincere religious beliefs. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-5(b). Of course, since the PWFA concerns only pregnancy in the workplace, this makes clear that Congress meant to allow religious exemptions from pregnancy-accommodation claims. Yet now EEOC claims the exemption bars only religious discrimination claims—which aren’t authorized by the PWFA in the first place. That renders the exception a nullity, protecting employers from PWFA claims that don’t exist.

National Review yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

5th Circuit Stays Contempt Order Requiring 3 Attorneys Take Religious Liberty Training

In Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of America, (5th Cir., June 7, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal of a controversial contempt sanction imposed by a Texas federal district court against three attorneys for Southwest Airlines. (See prior posting.) Southwest had failed to adequately comply with a remedial Order imposed on it for firing a flight attendant because of her social media posts and private messaging featuring aborted fetuses to illustrate her religious objections to abortion.  The district court, among other things, ordered that the attorneys responsible for non-compliance with the prior Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. In staying the contempt sanction, the Court of Appeals said in part:

[T]here is a strong likelihood that the contempt order exceeded the district court’s civil contempt authority....

Civil contempt sanctions are “remedial” and “designed to compel future compliance with a court order” by either “coerc[ing] the defendant into compliance with the court’s order” or “compensat[ing] the complainant for losses sustained” as a result of the noncompliance.... Criminal contempt sanctions, by contrast, are used to “punish defiance of the court and deter similar actions.”... Generally, “criminal [contempt] penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings.”...

At bottom, it appears that the district court sought, at least in part, to punish Southwest for what the district court viewed as conduct flouting its holding that Southwest had violated Title VII. But its punitive sanctions likely exceed the scope of the court’s civil-contempt authority.

Law dork reports on the decision.

Lifeguard Sues L.A. County Over Required Flag Raising for Pride Month

A suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by plaintiff who is employed as a lifeguard by Los Angeles County objecting to the requirement that he raise the Progress Pride Flag at his lifeguard station during June which has been designated as LGBTQ+ Pride month. The complaint (full text) in Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, filed 5/24/2024), alleges in part:

Captain Little is ... an evangelical Christian with beliefs on marriage, family, sexual behavior and identity that align with the traditional and orthodox biblical-social teachings....

... While Captain Little understands that the government can speak its own messages, and thus may promote Pride Month, he believes that he cannot personally do so by raising the Progress Pride Flag. Doing so would be to personally participate in, espouse, and promote messages contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, similar to how many courts have recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses may not salute or pledge allegiance to the flag of any nation or state....

The complaint alleges that requiring him to raise the Pride Flag, refusing to provide him with a religious accommodation and taking retaliatory action against him violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Law, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions and the Free Speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Los Angeles Times has additional details.

UPDATE: According to a June 5. 2024 press release from the Thomas More Society, Los Angeles County has agreed to give plaintiff a partial accommodation by not requiring him to raise the Progress Pride Flag as part of his job for the remainder of June.

8th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Suit for Failure to Accommodate Religious Objections to Vaccine Mandate

In Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, (8th Cir., May 24, 2024), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Minnesota federal district court's dismissal of suits by Mayo Clinic employees who sought accommodations because their employer's Covid vaccine mandate violated their religious beliefs. The court concluded that two of the employees did properly exhaust their administrative remedies under Title VII. It also found that all the employees had adequately pleaded a conflict between their Christian religious beliefs and the vaccine mandate. Finally, it concluded that the Minnesota Human Rights Act provides a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs.

11th Circuit: Excluding Sex Change Surgery from Health Plan Violates Title VII

 In Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, (11th Cir., May 13, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that an employer violated Title VII's ban on sex discrimination in employment when its employee health insurance plan excluded coverage for sex change surgery. The majority said in part:

The Exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.  Health Plan participants who are transgender are the only participants who would seek gender-affirming surgery.  Because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status....

 By drawing a line between gender-affirming surgery and other operations, the plan intentionally carves out an exclusion based on one’s transgender status.  Lange’s sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

Judge Brasher dissenting said in part:

... [T] the employer-provided health insurance plan here does not deny coverage to anyone because he or she is transgender. The alleged problem with this plan is that it excludes coverage for sex change surgeries, not that it denies coverage to transgender people. On the face of this policy, it doesn’t treat anyone differently based on sex, gender nonconformity, or transgender status....

... [T]he majority’s reasoning effectively eliminates “disparate impact” as a separate theory of liability. For various reasons, Lange is proceeding here under a disparate treatment theory, which is why the claim requires a showing of discriminatory intent. But we have developed an entire body of law—disparate impact—to address claims about certain facially nondiscriminatory employment policies that harm members of a protected class.... That body of law requires, among other things, an evaluation of an employer’s legitimate business reasons for adopting the policy.....

TLDEF issued a press release announcing the decision.

18 States Sue EEOC Over Guidance on Transgender Sexual Harassment

Eighteen states filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging an EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace issued on April 29.  The lengthy Guidance includes the following:

[S]ex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed. Harassing conduct based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault due to sexual orientation or gender identity; outing (disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); harassing conduct because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex; repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.

The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. EEOC, (ED TN, filed 5/13/2024) among other things alleges that the Guidance violates the First Amendment, saying in part:

By purporting to require employers and their employees to convey the Administration’s preferred message on controversial gender-identity preferences— for example, requiring the use of pronouns that align with an employee’s self-professed gender identity and prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with that employee’s biological sex—the Enforcement Document unconstitutionally compels and restrains speech, even if contrary to the regulated parties’ viewpoints....

Requiring that employers and their employees adhere to EEOC’s chosen gender ideology orthodoxy likewise treads on religious freedoms.  Because Title VII provides exemptions for small employers, it is not “generally applicable,” and the Enforcement Document triggers strict scrutiny under free-exercise caselaw.... EEOC’s gender-ideology-accommodation mandate impermissibly violates employers’ and employees’ free-exercise rights.... Thus, adopting the policies required by the Enforcement Document would cause Plaintiff States to violate their employee’s First Amendment rights.

Tennessee's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Discrimination Claim for Denial of Personal Leave Moves Ahead

In Balchan v. New Rochelle City School District, (SD NY, May 7, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims of religious discrimination, retaliation for submitting claims of religious discrimination, and a due process claim for stigmatization plus loss of employment. Plaintiff is a Jewish woman who was employed as the school district's Medial Director. At issue are disciplinary charges brought against her for allegedly using personal leave days for a vacation and the stigmatizing report by a hearing officer in connection with those charges. The court details the factual background in part as follows:

Plaintiff observes Jewish holidays including, but not limited to, Yamim Nora’im (a/k/a the “Days of Awe”), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur..... Plaintiff alleges that her personal scheme of things religious evolved over the course of her life, and that marriage to her Trinidadian husband resulted in her “meld[ing] many of her Jewish religious beliefs into her new Trinidadian identity.” ...

... Specifically, Plaintiff’s “personal scheme of things religious required that she take personal leave during [the Days of Awe] to adjust, meditate, repair her connection to [God], and re-focus . . . .” Accordingly, she planned a trip with her family to Trinidad and Tobago which she alleges was “religious in nature given its relation to the Jewish high holy days” and what had been going on in her personal and professional life....