Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Title VII Claim By Non-Ministerial Employee

In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., (WD WA, June 12, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, finding it is barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  A Christian ministry's job offer to plaintiff for the full-time position of Donor/Customer Service Representative Trainee was rescinded when defendant learned that plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage. The court discussed the relationship between the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the Ministerial Exception, concluding that the Church Autonomy Doctrine may be invoked when a non-ministerial employee brings a Title VII action.  The court said in part:

... [T]he Church Autonomy Doctrine requires the court to abstain from resolving employment discrimination claims where a religious institution takes an adverse action pursuant to a religious belief or policy—regardless of whether the employer allegedly discriminated on religious or other protected grounds—unless it is possible for the court resolve the claims without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine or calling into question the reasonableness, validity, or truth of a religious doctrine or practice....

The court joins other courts ... in cautioning religious employers against over-reading the impact of the court’s holding. It is by no means the case that all claims of discrimination against religious employers are barred....  [I]f a religious employer does not offer a religious justification for an adverse employment action against a non-ministerial employee or if the plaintiff presents sufficient secular evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that the religious justification was pretext without wading into the plausibility of the asserted religious doctrine, it is unlikely that serious constitutional questions will be raised by applying Title VII.

Football Coach Can Proceed on Some Claims Against University After Termination for Refusing Covid Vaccine

In Rolovich v. Washington State University, (ED WA, May 30, 2023), a Washington federal district court refused to dismiss failure to accommodate and breach of contract claims by the head football coach of Washington State University who was terminated after he refused to comply with the state's Covid vaccine mandate. Discussing plaintiff's Title VII failure to accommodate claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff’s claim that his Catholic faith informed his decision not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine is sufficient at the pleading stage to meet the prima facie element that he has a bona fide religious belief.... Plaintiff has adequately pleaded the first element of the prima facie case for a failure to accommodate claim. Defendant does not challenge the remaining elements of Plaintiff’s prima facie case....

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s accommodation request would have resulted in increased travel costs, harm to recruitment and fundraising efforts, and damage to WSU’s reputation and donor commitments, in addition to an increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 to student athletes and other coaching staff....

While these claims of undue hardship may be supported by evidence not presently before the Court, they are insufficient on their own to support a finding that Plaintiff’s accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship....

The court concluded that the WSU Athletic Director was entitled to qualified immunity as to the coach's free exercise and due process claims. USA Today reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal to Accommodate Christian Employee's Belief Without Back-Up from Religious Leader

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Triple Canopy, Inc., a Reston, Virginia-based company that provides protective services to federal agencies. The EEOC, alleging failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, said in part:

[D]espite the employee’s repeated explanations that he did not belong to a formal religious denomination but nonetheless held a Christian belief that men must wear beards, Triple Canopy denied his request for a religious accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a certified or documented religious leader. Additionally, Triple Canopy subjected him to intolerable work conditions that resulted in his discharge.

9th Circuit Remands Employees' Challenge to Vaccine Exemption Denial

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir., May 15, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision from a California federal district court that denied preliminary relief to two city and county employees who were denied religious exemptions from CCSF's COVID vaccine mandate. The appeals court said in part:

The district court erroneously concluded that “[n]either Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine...."...

Beyond the district court’s factual error, its decision reflects a misunderstanding of Title VII law. A religious belief need not be consistent or rational to be protected under Title VII, and an assertion of a sincere religious belief is generally accepted.... 

The district court did not explain its conclusion that Appellants had not established sincerity beyond stating that there are “no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines . . . are . . . derived from murdered babies” and generally stating that personal preferences are not sincere religious beliefs. And CCSF offered no argument or evidence that Appellants’ beliefs are insincere. Absent any indication otherwise, it seems that the district court erroneously held that Appellants had not asserted sincere religious beliefs because their beliefs were not scientifically accurate. Remand is warranted for the district court to reevaluate Appellants’ claims applying the proper failure-to-accommodate inquiry....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues IHOP Restaurant for Failing to Accommodate Cook's Religious Beliefs

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit in a North Carolina federal district court against a Charlotte, North Carolina IHOP restaurant operated by Suncakes, LLC.  The EEOC charged that the restaurant failed to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious exercise:

... Suncakes hired a cook ... in January 2021. At the time of hire, the employee requested and was granted a religious accommodation of not working on Sundays to honor his religious observances. After a change in management in April 2021, the new general manager expressed hostility toward the accommodation and required the employee to work on Sunday, April 25 and Sunday, May 9. After the May 9 shift, the employee told the general manager he would not be working the following Sunday. The general manager refused to allow the employee to work his next scheduled shift and fired him. The manager then made comments to other employees such as, “religion should not take precedence over [the employee’s] job”” and that the employee “thinks it is more important to go to church than to pay his bills.”

EEOC Sues Hospital for Failing to Accommodate Religious Objection to Flu Shot

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against Mercy Health St. Mary’s, a Grand Rapids, Michigan hospital for refusing to provide a religious accommodation to a job applicant and declining to hire him because of his religious beliefs. The release said in part:

... Mercy Health St. Mary’s violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by rescinding a job offer to an applicant who, for religious reasons, refused to receive a flu vaccine. Under Mercy Health’s influenza policy, employees are required to get a flu shot on an annual basis unless granted an exemption. While the applicant’s conditional job offer was pending, he applied for an exemption to the flu shot requirement based on his religious beliefs. Mercy Health arbitrarily denied his request and rescinded the job offer, without specifying to the applicant why or how his request for an exemption was deficient, the EEOC said.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Today In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in Groff v. DeJoy, an important religious liberty case testing the extent to which Title VII requires accommodation of employees' religious practices. 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.) In the case, petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to revisit and reject the "more than de minimis" test for "undue hardship" announced in TWA v. Hardison. SCOTUSblog has a Case Preview with more details on the parties' arguments. The SCOTUSblog Case Page has links to the filings by the parties as well as to the more than 50 amicus briefs that have been filed. The arguments will be streamed live from the Supreme Court today at 10:00 AM here. The transcript and audio of the full oral arguments will be available later today here on the Supreme Court's website.

Dismissal Recommended in Healthcare Worker's Claim for Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Bolonchuk v. Cherry Creek Nursing Center/ Nexion Health, (D CO, April 12, 2023), a Colorado federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a former nursing home healthcare employee whose 18-year long employment was terminated after she refused on religious grounds to comply with her employer's Covid vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. A state regulation required the vaccine mandate. The court rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim because defendant was not alleged to be a state actor.  It also rejected her claim that Title VII required a religious accommodation, saying in part:

Defendant would have had to violate a state law (i.e., the regulation mandate) in order to accommodate Plaintiff, clearly establishing an undue hardship.

7th Circuit: Accommodating Teacher's Religious Beliefs as To Transgender Students Imposed Undue Hardship

 In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., (7th Cir., April 7, 2023), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld a school's dismissal of a teacher who refused on religious grounds to comply with the school policy of calling transgender students by their names registered in the school's official database. In a 79-page majority opinion rejecting the teacher's Title VII claims, the court said in part:

After Brownsburg initially accommodated Kluge’s request to call all students by their last names only, the school withdrew the accommodation when it became apparent that the practice was harming students and negatively impacting the learning environment for transgender students, other students both in Kluge’s classes and in the school generally, as well as the faculty. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school after concluding that the undisputed evidence showed that the school was unable to accommodate Kluge’s religious beliefs and practices without imposing an undue hardship on the school’s conduct of its business of educating all students that entered its doors. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of Brownsburg on Kluge’s retaliation claim. We agree that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Kluge’s accommodation harmed students and disrupted the learning environment. Because no reasonable jury could conclude that harm to students and disruption to the learning environment are de minimis harms to a school’s conduct of its business, we affirm.

Judge Brennan dissented as to the reasonable accommodation claim. In a 54-page dissent, he said in part:

Kluge’s religious accommodation claim comes down to a fact-intensive inquiry: Did the School District demonstrate that Kluge’s gender-neutral accommodation of calling all students by only their last names causes undue hardship—that is, more than a de minimis cost? The majority opinion says “yes,” but it sidesteps Kluge’s countervailing evidence, fails to construe the record in his favor, and overlooks credibility issues on both sides, which are reserved for resolution by the factfinder. 

... [W]ithout supporting authority, my colleagues hold that the undue hardship inquiry looks only to evidence within the employer’s knowledge at the time of the adverse employment decision.... Considering the entire record, there is a genuine issue of material fact on undue hardship, which we should remand for trial.

Reuters reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Jehovah's Witness' Suit Over State-Employee Loyalty Oath Is Remanded

In Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the California State Controller, (9th Cir., April 3, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jehovah's Witness who challenged California's refusal to allow her to add a paragraph to the state-employee loyalty oath specifying that by signing it she is not giving up the right to exercise her religion which requires her primary loyalty be to God. Reversing dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII claims, the court said in part:

California’s apparent rationale for the oath requirement is to ensure that if an oath taker’s religion ever comes into conflict with the federal or state constitutions, religion must yield....

[T]o exempt the Controller’s Office from a federal accommodation requirement solely because the requested accommodation would violate state law would essentially permit states to legislate away any federal accommodation obligation....

Bolden-Hardge alleges a disparate impact... She contends that her religious beliefs are “consistent with [those] of other Jehovah’s Witnesses,” who also believe that their faith forbids them from swearing primary allegiance to any human government.... [T]his belief is in tension with the loyalty oath requirement....

The loyalty oath is a business necessity, the Controller’s Office argues, because public employees must be “committed to working within and promoting the fundamental rule of law while on the job.”... It asserts that allowing addenda that indicate an oath-taker’s primary loyalty to God would render the oath meaningless and undermine critical state interests. This assertion may well prove true and, if so, the Controller’s Office may be able to defeat Bolden-Hardge’s disparate impact claim at a later stage of the litigation. But this is not apparent from the face of her Complaint,,,,

Muslim Corrections Officer Applicant Can Move Ahead With 1st Amendment and Title VII Claims

In Talukder v. State of New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2023), a New York federal district court allowed a Sunni Muslim applicant to the New York Department of Corrections Training Academy to move ahead with his 1st Amendment free exercise claim as well as his Title VII failure to accommodate and disparate treatment claims.  Plaintiff sought to wear a 3-inch beard for religious reasons, while the Academy was unwilling to permit any beard longer than one-eighth of an inch. Finding a free exercise violation was adequately alleged, the court said in part:

DOCCS allows numerous uniformed staff to grow beards for secular reasons, while simultaneously denying trainees the same accommodation on religious grounds....

The justification that Defendants proffer for the ban—that “all trainees must pass a respirator fit test and applicable respirator training to become certified correctional officers,” ...—raises a fact-intensive inquiry that fails to justify dismissal at this stage. The Complaint raises a plausible inference that a policy requiring all trainees to be clean-shaven or wear facial hair no longer than 1/8 of an inch in order to pass a respiratory fit-test is not narrowly tailored to advance the goal of preparing trainees to become corrections officers—particularly given that many of those officers will never have to wear a respirator at all....

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Fire Chief's Religious Discrimination Claim

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in Hittle v. City of Stockton (video of full oral arguments). In the case (full text of district court opinion), a California federal district court rejected religious discrimination and retaliation claims brought by Ronald Hittle, Stockton, California's former Fire Chief. He was fired in part for attending a two-day religious "Global Leadership Summit" with three other city employees on city time and using a city vehicle. First Liberty issued a press release on the oral arguments.

Nurse Denied Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate Loses Title VII and Free Exercise Challenges

In Riley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, Feb. 17, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed without prejudice a suit by a Christian nurse in a hospital's surgical unit who claimed that denying her a religious exemption from the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate violated her rights under Title VII and the Free Exercise Clause. The court said in part:

Title VII cannot be used to require employers to break the law..... When the defendant implemented its vaccine mandate, [New York State Department of Health Rule] Section 2.61, a binding state regulation, required the defendant to “continuously require personnel” like the plaintiff “to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, absent receipt of” a medical exemption. 10 N.Y.C.C.R. § 2.61(c)....

The plaintiff does not argue that the defendant’s vaccine mandate was not generally applicable. She argues only that the mandate “was not neutral and was and is hostile to the religious beliefs of the plaintiff, as it presupposed the illegitimacy of her religious beliefs and practices.”... An enactment violates the neutrality principle if it “explicitly singles out a religious practice” or “targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment.”... The plaintiff pleads no facts suggesting that the defendant’s mandate is guilty of either. To the extent the plaintiff alleges that the mandate’s lack of a religious exception alone makes it non-neutral, We The Patriots forecloses that argument. See 17 F.4th at 282....

Suit Says Sheriff's Office Pressures Employees to Join Favored Church

Suit was filed this week in a Washington federal district court by an ex-deputy sheriff who alleges that Chelan County (WA) Sheriff's Office employees pressured him to join the "'alt-right' militant" Grace City Church and to attend its 12-week marriage counseling program. The complaint (full text) in Shepard v. Chelan County, (ED WA, filed 2/14/2023), alleges in part:

Defendant Chelan County Sheriff's Department targeted law enforcement officers who are not Grace City Church members by disciplining, terminating, and denying advancement to them for alleged internal Chelan County Sheriff's Office policy violations by arbitrarily enforcing certain policies against those employees and officers for the same conduct they allow, promote, or engage in themselves.

The suit alleges violation of Title VII, the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Establishment Clause. NCWLIFE reports on the lawsuit.

DOJ Enters Consent Decree with Lansing, MI In Suit Over Firing of 7th Day Adventist Employee

The U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has entered into a consent decree with the city of Lansing, Michigan to settle a Title VII religious accommodation and retaliation lawsuit that alleged the city fired a Seventh Day Adventist police officer rather than accommodating her Sabbath observance. Under the terms of the consent decree, which must still be approved by the court, Lansing will develop religious accommodation and retaliation policies, and trainings on them. It will also pay the former employee $50,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. UPI reports on the settlement.

Federal Reserve Bank Can Be Sued Under Both Title VII and RFRA

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 18, 2023), a New York federal district court held that two former employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may bring Title VII as well as RFRA and Free Exercise claims against FRBNY for denying them a religious exemption from the Bank's COVID vaccine mandate. It distinguished cases holding that other governmental entities can be sued only under Title VII. It held however that New York City and New York state anti-discrimination laws are pre-empted by federal law giving NYFRB the power to dismiss employees.

Dismissal of Title VII Suit By Teacher Fired By Catholic School Is Denied

In Ference v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, (WD PA, Jan. 18, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to dismiss filed by the Catholic Diocese in a Title VII sex-discrimination lawsuit by a Lutheran 6th-grade teacher in a Catholic school who was fired shortly after being hired when the school discovered that he was in a same-sex marriage. The Diocese had raised defenses based on Title VII's exemption for religious discrimination, the church autonomy doctrine, the ministerial exception and RFRA.

Cert. Granted To Review Title VII "Undue Hardship" Test For Religious Accommodation

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Groff v. DeJoy, (Docket No. 22-174, certiorari granted, 1/13/2023). (Order list). 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.)In the case, petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to revisit and reject the test for "undue hardship" announced in TWA v. Hardison. (cert. petition). Here is SCOTUSblog's case page for the case.

Christian School Teacher Fired for Acceptance of LGBT Students Files Suit

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court by Adam McDorman, an English teacher who was fired by Valley Christian School for urging the school's principal, Josh LeSage, to show acceptance and understanding of a student who identifies as pansexual.  The complaint (full text) in McDorman v. Valley Christian Schools, (D AZ, filed 12/27/2022), alleges in part:

15. McDorman’s Christian faith and beliefs include acceptance and equality for all LGBT persons and do not tolerate discrimination or hostility against them....

19.  On November 1, 2021, during a staff meeting at which McDorman was present, LeSage said that all of VCS staff should have the same religious belief in the sinfulness of LGBT sexual orientation, and that anyone who did not agree was like a cancer that needed to be removed from the (VCS) organization....

The complaint alleges that McDorman's firing amounted to religious discrimination and retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices in violation of provisions of Title VII and Title IX. AZFamily News reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Sues For Rastafarian Who Was Denied Grocery Manager Position

The EEOC has announced that yesterday it filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against a Williamsburg, Kentucky IGA grocery store.  The suit, filed in a Kentucky federal district court, alleges that the grocery refused to hire Spiritualist Rastafarian Matthew Barnett as an assistant manager after he refused to cut his dreadlocks which he wears for religious reasons. The EEOC says that employers must consider reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.