EEOC Sues Chipotle For Manager's Harassment of Muslim Teen

 The EEOC announced that last week it filed a Title VII suit against the restaurant chain Chipotle contending that a manager at a Kansas restaurant location harassed a teenage employee for wearing a hijab. According to the EEOC:

During the summer of 2021, an assistant manager began repeatedly asking [the employee] to remove her hijab, or headscarf, pressuring her to show him her hair. Despite the teen’s rejections and complaints to management, Chipotle failed to act to stop the manager’s harassment. Chipotle’s inaction resulted in the manager escalating his abuse, ultimately grabbing and forcibly removing part of the teen’s hijab.

After the teen reported the incident, Chipotle again failed to take prompt corrective action, and she was forced to submit her two weeks’ notice. The EEOC further alleges that Chipotle retaliated against the teen by refusing to schedule her to work additional shifts unless she agreed to transfer locations, while allowing her harasser to continue working at the same location.

EEOC Sues on Behalf of Muslim Employee

 On Tuesday, the EEOC announced that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against Blackwell Security Services, Inc., a hotel and condominium staffing company, for refusing to accommodate a Muslim employee's religious practice.  According to the EEOC:

[T]he employee, who worked as a concierge in Chicago, Illinois, is a practicing Muslim who wears a beard as required by his religious beliefs. Soon after he was hired, he was told by a Blackwell supervisor that it was company policy that all employees be clean shaven. The employee requested an exemption from the policy to accommodate his religious practice. However, according to the EEOC’s complaint, Blackwell told him to shave his beard or be terminated. To avoid losing his job, the employee complied.

Employees Failed to Show Sincere Religious Beliefs for Vaccine Exemptions

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Sept. 25, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed RFRA, Title VII and First Amendment claims by two Federal Reserve Bank employees who were denied religious exemptions from the FRB's Covid vaccine mandate.  The court, in a 52-page opinion, concluded that neither Lori Gardner-Alfred nor Jeanette Diaz had demonstrated that their objections to the vaccine were based on sincere religious beliefs. The court said in part:

Gardner-Alfred claims to be a member of the Temple of Healing Spirit, which is a belief system that she describes as “oppos[ing] the invasive techniques of traditional Western medicine.” ...

Defendant argues that no reasonable jury could find that Gardner-Alfred’s objections to the vaccine were grounded in sincerely held religious beliefs.,,,  Defendant argues that there is no evidence Gardner-Alfred enjoyed any relationship with the Temple of Healing Spirit beyond paying for a vaccination exemption package and that her medical history, both before and after she made her request for a religious accommodation, is inconsistent with her alleged religious beliefs....

 No reasonable jury thus would be able to conclude that her claimed religious beliefs were anything other than contrived....

... [T]here is undisputed evidence that Diaz would have a motive to “fraudulently hid[e] secular interests behind a veil of religious doctrine.”... Diaz submitted her accommodation request days after attending a secular anti-vaccination webinar featuring materials entitled “White Paper—Experimental Covid Vaccines,” and “Review of Ivermectin Efficacy.”...  [S]he subscribed to at least eight newsletters, which sent her several hundred emails, from sources opposing the vaccine on secular grounds.... 

There also is evidence of Diaz acting in a manner inconsistent with her claimed religious views.... Diaz concedes that she has on many occasions taken medications and received injections without first checking whether they contain or were made or manufactured with aborted fetal cell lines...

Diaz further does not dispute that the views that she now claims to hold are different from those held by the church of which she claims to be a member..... 

... She bases her objection on the letter she received from the Colorado Catholic Conference, an organization with which she had no prior affiliation and has no current affiliation.... The letter is available for download from the internet from anyone who seeks it....

Physician Assistant Can Move Ahead with Challenges to Her Dismissal for Her Views on Gender Identity

In Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, (WD MI, Sept. 20, 2023), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a physician assistant's free exercise, equal protection and Title VII religious discrimination and failure to accommodate claims against a hospital that dismissed her for her unwillingness, on religious grounds, to refer gender transitioning patients for various drugs and procedures, or to use pronouns that do not correspond to a patient’s biological sex. Plaintiff asserted that as a Christian she believes that one’s sex is ordained by God and that one should not attempt to erase or to alter his or her sex.

The court concluded in part that:

Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Defendants’ hostility toward her religious beliefs motivated them to terminate her employment.

The court however dismissed certain other claims by plaintiff, including her free speech claim. 

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision. 

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Catholic School's Firing of Teacher Who Entered Same-Sex Marriage

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School.  In the case, a North Carolina federal district court held that a Catholic high school is liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for firing a substitute drama teacher after he entered a same-sex marriage and stated on Facebook his disagreement with Catholic teaching on marriage. (See prior posting.) As reported by Reuters, during oral argument the judges pressed the parties on the applicability of the ministerial exception doctrine, even though the school had stipulated that it would not raise the doctrine as a defense in order to avoid protracted discovery on the teacher's job duties.

New Decisions on Covid Vaccine Religious Objection Claims

Decisions have been handed down in the past few days in several cases in which employees who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate have sued:

In Dicapua v. City of New York, (Richmond Cty. NY Sup. Ct., Sept 18, 2923), 16 employees of the Department of Education brought suit.  A New York state trial court held that ten of the employees should have been granted a religious exemption, saying in part:

This Court sees no rational basis for not allowing unvaccinated classroom teachers in amongst an admitted population of primarily unvaccinated students.

In Mora v. New York State Unified Court System, (SD NY, Sept. 19, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by a Poughkeepsie City Court Judge, saying in part:

Here, the Vaccine Mandate has been repealed, and plaintiff has been reinstated to his full in-person duties. Therefore, plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law, or a need for prospective relief...

Damage claims were  dismissed in part on the basis of 11th Amendment immunity and in part because Title VII does not apply to government appointees on the policymaking level. His Free Exercise claim was denied because the vaccine mandate was a neutral, generally applicable rule. Retaliation and equal protection claims were also rejected.

In Trusov v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 20, 2023), an Oregon federal district court dismissed some of the claims brought by a registered nurse who was denied a religious accommodation, and deferred consideration of another of her claims.  The court said in part:

Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s First Claim, alleging religious discrimination in employment, the Court finds that OHSU’s arguments about undue hardship must await a motion for summary judgment, at which time the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings and, if necessary, motions to exclude expert testimony. Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s second claim brought under § 1983 against the individual Defendants, the Court dismisses that claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Regarding, Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s request for prospective declaratory relief, the Court dismisses that request for lack of standing.

In Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 19, 2023), an Oregon federal district court rejected claims brought by a research laboratory manager who was denied a religious exemption as well as a medical exemption. The court said in part:

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim fails because OHSU offered to accommodate Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by offering an accommodation—masking—to which Plaintiff has alleged no objection based on religion....

Plaintiff’s assertion that masking would not promote safety is a secular objection, not a religious one. That objection, therefore, does not establish that the offered accommodation to her religious objection was not reasonable for purposes of her claim of religious discrimination.

Other of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed on qualified immunity and standing grounds.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate For Remote-Working Emloyee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the healthcare provider United Healthcare Services for refusing to grant a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate to an employee whose duties were performed entirely remotely. The EEOC said in part:

“Neither healthcare providers nor COVID-19 vaccination requirements are excepted from Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination.”

EEOC Sues Over Refusal of Religious Accommodation from Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Arkansas-based Hank’s Furniture, Inc. for refusing to grant an employee a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate. According to the EEOC:

When the Pensacola assistant store manager requested an accommodation exempting her from the requirement due to her Christian beliefs, her store manager and immediate supervisor informed her that the company would strip her of her management position if she refused to comply with the policy, no matter the reason. Despite her verbal and written requests for a religious accommodation, which Hank’s Furniture could have honored without undue hardship, the EEOC says, the company denied her requests and terminated her employment.

Court Refuses Stay Pending Appeal of Order That Attorneys Get Religious-Liberty Training

As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:

... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties.  And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.

In a footnote, the court added:

This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.

LawDork reports on the decision.

Title VII Claim for Denying Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Moves Ahead

In MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Aug, 28, 2023), an Oregon federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII claim by a former nurse in a hospital's Mother and Baby Unit who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The hospital argued that because plaintiff's job duties required her to interact with vulnerable pregnant mothers and newborn babies, any accommodation would pose an "undue hardship" on the hospital.  The court pointed out that on a motion to dismiss, unlike on a motion for summary judgment, the court is generally not permitted to consider evidence outside of the pleadings, saying in part:

Accordingly, this Court finds that, at this stage, it is unable to properly consider the extrinsic evidence on which Defendants rely to show either that there were no other viable accommodations to Plaintiff’s vaccination, or that any accommodations would have created an undue hardship consistent with Groff....

... [O]n a fuller evidentiary record, Defendants may be able to satisfy their burden to show that any accommodation would indeed have resulted in a substantial cost to OHSU. But Defendants have not met that burden at this stage.

The court however dismissed plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, concluding that defendants had qualified immunity.

Human Resources Employee Sues Seeking Religious Accommodation to Avoid DEI Participation

 A lawsuit was filed last month in a California federal district court by Courtney Rogers, a former human resources employee of a multinational food service company, who was fired after she objected to taking part in the company's DEI program, captioned Operation Equity.  Rogers sought a religious accommodation because Operation Equity violates her religious and moral beliefs. The program offers special training and mentorship to women and people of color. The complaint (full text) in Rogers v. COMPASS Group USA, Inc., (SD CA, filed 7/24/2023), alleged in part:

59. ROGERS has sincerely held religious beliefs, based on deeply and sincerely held religious, moral, and ethical convictions, that people should not be discriminated against because of their race.

60. ROGERS’s religious beliefs conflicted with the job’s requirements because she was required to work on implementing something COMPASS called “Operation Equity,” an employment program designed to exclude white males from opportunities for training, mentorship and promotion.

Rogers had proposed swapping 2 to 3 hours per week of her duties with another employee, but the company refused to discuss an accommodation. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and various provisions of California law. She seeks damages and reinstatement. SHRM reports on the lawsuit.

5th Circuit En Banc Expands Its Interpretation of Title VII

In Hamilton v. Dallas County, (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of appeals in an en banc decision overturned the Circuit's previous precedent that held employment discrimination violates Title VII only if the discrimination involved an ultimate employment decision such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting or compensating. In this case, the Dallas County Sheriff's Department gave its detention service officers two days off each week.  However, only men could choose to take two weekend days; women officers could only have one weekend day and one weekday, or two weekdays. The majority said in part:

Nowhere does Title VII say, explicitly or implicitly, that employment discrimination is lawful if limited to non-ultimate employment decisions. To be sure, the statute prohibits discrimination in ultimate employment decisions—“hir[ing],” “refus[ing] to hire,” “discharg[ing],” and “compensation”—but it also makes it unlawful for an employer “otherwise to discriminate against” an employee “with respect to [her] terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

Our ultimate-employment-decision test ignores this key language.

While the decision relates to a sex discrimination claim, the holding applies equally to religious discrimination.

Judge Ho filed a concurring opinion.

Judge Jones, joined by Judges Smith and Oldham concurred only in the judgment, saying in part:

The majority's incomplete ruling ... leaves the bench, bar, and employers and employees with no clue as to what this court will finally declare to be the minimum standard for Title VII liability....

... [A]s the majority recognizes, the Supreme Court emphasizes that Title VII does not effectuate a workplace “general civility code.”...Yet as written, the majority opinion has no baseline for “discrimination” based on terms or conditions of employment.

In Contempt Sanction, Court Orders Attorneys To Attend Religious Liberty Training

In Carter v. Transport Workers of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug.7, 2023), a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of  her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest claimed that the flight attendant had violated the company's social media policy regarding civility. In its current Order, The court set out a specifically worded communication that the Airline is required to send to its flight attendants regarding its obligation under Title VII not to engage in religious discrimination. The court also ordered that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court explained, in part:

When a litigant “does not appear to comprehend” a legal concept, training in “the relevant subject area” constitutes a “particularly apropos” sanction.

[Thanks to Joel Taubman for the lead.]

9th Circuit: Fire Chief's Dismissal Was Not Motivated by Religious Discrimination

In Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, (9th Cir., Aug. 4, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act brought by the city's former Fire Chief.  Among the several reasons given to plaintiff by the city for his dismissal was his attendance at a religious leadership event on city time and with use of a city vehicle, and his approval for three other Department employees to also attend. The city had also received anonymous complaints that plaintiff gave favored treatment to other employees who were part of his Christian coalition. The court said in part:

Hittle must demonstrate that his religion was “a motivating factor” in Defendants’ decision to fire him with respect to his federal claims, ..., and that his religion was “a substantial motivating factor” for his firing with respect to his FEHA claims....

[B]ecause neither Montes nor Deis made any remarks demonstrating their own hostility to religion, but focused on the Summit’s lack of benefit to the City and other evidence of Hittle’s misconduct, Hittle failed to demonstrate that hostility to religion was even a motivating factor in his termination....

... [B]ased on the record before us, the district court’s granting of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor was appropriate where Defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing Hittle were, in sum, sufficient to rebut Hittle’s evidence of discrimination, and Hittle has failed to persuasively argue that these non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual.

In a press release, First Liberty Institute said it would seek review of the 9th Circuit panel's decision.

7th Circuit Vacates Prior Decision On Teacher's Refusal To Call Transgender Students By Registered Name

As previously reported, earlier this year in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., 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. Now, in an Order (full text) issued on July 28, the 7th Circuit has vacated its decision and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Groff v. DeJoy. ADF issued a press release announcing the court's new Order.

Some Claimed Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate Were Not Religious In Nature

In Ellison v. Inova Health Care Services, three hospital employees sued because their claims for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate were rejected.  They asserted that their employer violated Title VII by failing to accommodate their religious beliefs. The court found that only the aborted fetal cell objections of one defendant were adequately linked in the pleadings to plaintiff's religious beliefs.  Other objections to the vaccine were not religious in nature.  The court said in part: 

In Ellison’s request for exception, he claims that, as a Christian, he has a right to refuse the vaccine. Specifically, he claims that the Bible requires Christians to treat their bodies as “temple[s] of the Holy Spirit,” meaning that he is “compel[led]” to care for his mind and body.... And because, in his view, taking the COVID-19 vaccine would “introduce to [his] body a medication that could induce harm,” he claims that complying with the hospital’s policy would be “antithetical to [his] desire to honor God.”...

... [T]he Court finds that, though couched in religious terms, Ellison refused the vaccines based on concerns of vaccine safety.

Two of the plaintiffs claimed that they pray over their health care decisions and follow God's answers.  The court rejected this, calling it an unverifiable claim of a blanket privilege that undermines our system of ordered liberty.

Certiorari Granted in Case on Interpretation of Title VII

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Muldrow v. St. Louis, MO, (Docket No. 22-193, certiorari granted 6/30/2023) (Order List), a Title VII employment discrimination case. The grant of certiorari was limited to the question of:

Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage?

At issue is a Title VII sex discrimination claim by a female police sergeant who was transferred from the St. Louis police department's Intelligence Division to work in the city's Fifth District and was subsequently denied a transfer to the Second District. The Court of Appeals in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, (8th Cir., April 4, 2022), held that absent a showing of harm resulting from a transfer, there has been no adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII. The Court's decision will impact religious discrimination in employment cases under Title VII as well as sex discrimination cases. Here is SCOTUSblog's case page with links to all the filings in the Supreme Court in the case.

Supreme Court Says "De Minimis" Is Incorrect Standard for Religious Accommodation Under Title VII

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Groff v. DeJoy,(Sup. Ct., June 29, 2023), held that lower courts have largely been misreading the Hardison case's standard for determining when accommodation of religious practices of employees imposes an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." The case involves a postal worker who was seeking accommodation of his Sabbath observance. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Alito, the Court said in part:

Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position that Hardison should be overruled—but only on the understanding that Hardison does not compel courts to read the “more than de minimis” standard “literally” or in a manner that undermines Hardison’s references to “substantial” cost....With the benefit of comprehensive briefing and oral argument, we agree.

We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business....

[B]oth parties agree that the language of Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business.”... As the Solicitor General put it, not all “impacts on coworkers . . . are relevant,” but only “coworker impacts” that go on to “affec[t] the conduct of the business.”...

An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.” If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself....

Second, ... Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommodations.... Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Petitioner Gerald Groff asks this Court to overrule Hardison.... The Court does not do so. That is a wise choice because stare decisis has “enhanced force” in statutory cases.De   

3 Courts Rule on Claims for Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandates

Last week, federal district courts in three states handed down decisions in cases in which a former employee was suing his or her employer for refusing to provide them with a religious exemption from the employer's Covid vaccine mandate.

In Crocker v. Austin, (WD LA, June 22, 2023) a Louisiana federal district court dismissed as moot a suit for injunctive relief brought by seven military service members who faced involuntary separation from the Air Force when they filed suit. However, in January 2023 the military rescinded the vaccine mandate and updated personnel records to remove any adverse actions associated with the denial of requested exemptions. Any remaining suit for damages falls under the Tucker Act and must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.

In Leek v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, (ED PA, June 23, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII religious discrimination claim filed by a nurse who was denied religious exemptions from a hospital's requirement to receive Covid and influenza vaccines. The hospital claimed that the nurse's objections were not religious in nature. The court held that the nurse's belief that chemical injections may make her body impure in the eyes of the Lord, and her objections to some vaccines because they were developed using aborted fetal cells, are both religious objections.  The fact that some of her other objections were more medical or political did not negate the presence of religious objections.

In Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, June 23, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by an Internet technology professional at a health care facility that denial of his request for a religious exemption from the state's Covid vaccine mandate violated Title VII and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court disagreed, holding that requiring the employer to violate a state rule would place an undue burden on the employer. The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the vaccine mandate was a neutral law of general applicability.

RFRA Requires Title VII Exemption for Business Operating on Christian Gender Beliefs

In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC, (5th Cir., June 20, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that RFRA requires an exemption from the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII for a company that operates three related health and wellness businesses on the basis of Christian beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.  The court said in part: 

RFRA requires that Braidwood ... be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC wholly fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock....

Although the Supreme Court may some day determine that preventing commercial businesses from discriminating on factors specific to sexual orientation or gender identity is such a compelling government interest that it overrides religious liberty in all cases, it has never so far held that....

Under RFRA, the government cannot rely on generalized interests but, instead, must demonstrate a compelling interest in applying its challenged rule to “the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”...

[T]he EEOC fails to carry its burden. It does not show a compelling interest in denying Braidwood, individually, an exemption. The agency does not even attempt to argue the point outside of gesturing to a generalized interest in prohibiting all forms of sex discrimination in every potential case. Moreover, even if we accepted the EEOC’s formulation of its compelling interest, refusing to exempt Braidwood, and forcing it to hire and endorse the views of employees with opposing religious and moral views is not the least restrictive means of promoting that interest.

Reuters reports on the decision.