Eviction Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Wexler v. City of San Diego, California, (SD CA, Nov. 4, 2024), a California federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was evicted from rental property he had occupied for a few days. The court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dup-A-Key harmed him by changing the rental unit’s door locks on the Sabbath....  Plaintiff alleges harm from Defendant Rough Rider Real Estate because he “had to record” Defendant’s employee drilling of a “No Trespass” sign onto the property on the Sabbath.... Plaintiff further alleges harm from Defendant Police Officers because the alleged unlawful eviction occurred on the Sabbath....  However, these actions are not violations under the Free Exercise Clause.  Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Dup-A-Key and Rough Rider Real Estate were government entities.  Nor does Plaintiff sufficiently allege that any government policy was not neutral or not generally applicable.  Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First Amendment § 1983 claims against all Defendants with leave to amend.

The court also rejected a variety of other challenges to the eviction alleged by plaintiff, including a claim that police officers discriminated against him because he mentioned to them that he was an Orthodox Jewish person.

Lufthansa Fined $4M For Discrimination Against Jewish Passengers Flying On Pilgrimage To Hungary

On Oct. 7, a Consent Cease-and-Desist Order (full text) was issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation imposing civil penalties of $4 million on the air carrier Lufthansa for religious discrimination against Jewish passengers traveling to Budapest in 2022 to participate in the annual pilgrimage to the shrine of the so-called "miracle rabbi" Yeshaya Steiner (known as Rabbi Shayele). (Background). The airline received a credit for $2 million that it had already paid to passengers.

Some 128 identifiably Orthodox Jewish passengers were on a flight from New York, with a connection in Frankfurt to go on to Budapest. They were all barred from boarding the connecting flight in Frankfurt after some 60 of the passengers refused on the first leg of the flight to comply with the Covid-related requirement to wear masks on the flight and some also gathered in aisles and near exits. The DOT Consent Order said in part:

Lufthansa’s decision to affix an HPC [High Priority Comment] to the reservations of nearly every passenger traveling in a group to Budapest without limiting such affixation to those passengers who Lufthansa verified failed to follow crew instructions on LH 401, which did not comport with Lufthansa’s own boarding procedures, directly resulted in the inability of the passengers to travel on the flights they purchased. As such, Lufthansa took action that had an adverse effect on these passengers whose only affiliation with each other was that they were of the same religion and/or ethnicity. 

Lufthansa’s actions impacted passengers who did not engage in problematic conduct. OACP finds that, under the totality of the circumstances, Lufthansa’s treatment of the 128 Jewish passengers as a collective group, based on the alleged misconduct of a smaller number of those individuals, constitutes discrimination based on religion in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 40127.

DOT issued a press release announcing the Consent Order. AP reported on the Consent Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange 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.

Court Grants Injunction to Jewish Students at UCLA Impeded by Gaza Protests

In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, (CD CA, Aug. 13, 2024), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction in a suit brought by Jewish students at UCLA who were blocked from accessing portions of the campus by pro-Palestinian encampments protesting Israel's retaliation in Gaza. The court said in part:

In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion....

Under the Court’s injunction, UCLA retains flexibility to administer the university. Specifically, the injunction does not mandate any specific policies and procedures UCLA must put in place, nor does it dictate any specific acts UCLA must take in response to campus protests. Rather, the injunction requires only that, if any part of UCLA’s ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas become unavailable to certain Jewish students, UCLA must stop providing those ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas to any students. How best to make any unavailable programs, activities, and campus areas available again is left to UCLA’s discretion.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

De Facto Exclusion of Catholic Schools From Tuition Grant Program Through Antidiscrimination Law Survives Strict Scrutiny

In St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, (D ME, Aug. 8, 2024), a Maine federal district court, in a 75-page opinion, refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Maine's educational and employment antidiscrimination laws in a suit brought by a Catholic diocese, a Catholic school and a Catholic family. After the U.S. Supreme Court held that Maine could not exclude parochial schools from participating in its program that pays tuition for certain out-of-district students, the legislature amended state law to provide that schools receiving state funds could not discriminate on the basis of religion or gender identity. This had the effect of excluding Catholic schools. Plaintiffs contend that this violates their free exercise rights.

The court concluded that the statute must meet strict scrutiny review because it is not a generally applicable law.  However, the court found that the statute survives struct scrutiny, saying in part:

 As a general matter, Maine’s asserted interest in eliminating discrimination within publicly funded institutions is compelling....

Furthermore, all the challenged provisions are written to prohibit only discriminatory conduct.  Under the provisions, “St. Dominic would still be free to conduct morning prayers however it wants, teach from a Catholic perspective, and promote Catholicism to the exclusion of all other religions.”... While the Plaintiffs put forth a number of policies and practices that arguably violate the challenged provisions, at this early stage—no state court has interpreted Chapter 366—it is not sufficiently clear the Act would reach any conduct that the state does not consider discriminatory.... 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Chapter 366 survives strict scrutiny.  In reaching this result, the Court is mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that a “law that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment or advances legitimate governmental interests only against conduct with a religious motivation will survive strict scrutiny only in rare cases.” ...  However, “rare” does not mean “never.”  Based on the record before it at this preliminary stage, the Court determines that the weighty interest advanced by the Defendants and the tailoring of Chapter 366 to fit that interest support a determination that Chapter 366 is likely to survive strict scrutiny....

In reaching its conclusions, the Court has discussed and decided the difficult constitutional questions presented.  At the same time, the Court recognizes that this case poses novel constitutional issues and ... the Court has attempted to frame its opinion as a prelude to a challenge to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a more authoritative ruling.

Jury Must Decide Whether School Board Had Religious Animus

In Pines Church v. Hermon School Department, (D ME, July 31, 2024), a Maine federal district court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment.  Pines Church sought to enter a 12-month lease to use space at Hermon High School for Sunday religious services.  The School Committee offered only a month-to-month lease. Plaintiffs claimed that the denial of a long-term lease was motivated by animus against their orthodox Christian religious beliefs. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs rely on the relatively blatant bias and the inferences that arise from the interrogatories posed by one Committee member who demanded to know from Pastor Gioia the Church’s “position” on a spate of religious, political, and cultural flashpoints before evaluating whether to extend a lease on behalf of a publicly funded school.  Plaintiffs also rely on a somewhat more tepid bias, sanitized through fear-of-association comments by others, along the lines that association with the Church may not fit with the Committee’s “goals” and may therefore create a “negative image” by not comporting with the School Department’s “mission” and evidently its own beliefs.  This evidence certainly is probative of Plaintiffs’ position that the School Committee’s refusal to offer Plaintiffs a lease was motivated by unconstitutional considerations, such as animus toward the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs.  For its part, the School Department counters that the School Committee’s decision, save for the one Committee member’s bill of particulars put to the Pastor, simply resulted from humdrum, benign space and cost concerns, although that narrative is far from conclusive based on the summary judgment record.  These competing characterizations of the Committee’s motivations form the most conspicuous reason I deny summary judgment to the parties in favor of a jury trial.

Jewish Women Lack Standing in Religious Freedom Challenge to Kentucky Abortion Restrictions

In Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., June 28, 2024), plaintiffs, three Jewish women, alleged, among other things, that the lack of exceptions for complications during pregnancy and lethal fetal anomalies in Kentucky's restrictive abortion laws impinge on their willingness to follow their religious obligations to expand their families in a manner that does not jeopardize their health or the health of their unborn children. Plaintiffs say that "In Judaism, having children is considered a blessing, and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is paramount." Plaintiffs alleged that the abortion statutes are unconstitutionally vague, violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and reflect sectarian Christian views that denigrate Jewish practice. A Kentucky state trial court dismissed the case, saying in part:

... [T]he alleged injuries of the three Plaintiffs are hypothetical as none are currently pregnant or undergoing IVF at the present time. Accordingly, the Court simply cannot find that the plaintiffs have shown "the existence of an actual controversy respecting justiciable questions which is a required condition precedent for a declaratory judgment action.... Therefore, the Court must conclude that the Plaintiffs here lack standing to proceed in this action.

NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

9th Circuit: Homeowner's Intrusive Christmas Display at Center of Fragmented Decision on Fair Housing Act Claims

 In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (9th Cir., June 17, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed an Idaho federal district court's rejection of a jury's verdict against a Homeowner's Association charged by plaintiff with violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act. At issue was efforts by the Homeowners Association to prevent plaintiffs from purchasing a home in the subdivision because of plaintiffs' plans to put on at their home a multi-day Christmas festival with thousands of lights, a live nativity scene, costumed characters and a real camel, all in order to raise funds for charity. A letter from the Homeowners Association to plaintiffs included a sentence reading: "And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up."

Judge Berzon's opinion, reflecting the conclusion of a majority of the 3-judge panel, held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of religious discrimination in violation of §3604(b) the Fair Housing Act, saying in part:

... [T]o support a disparate treatment claim, plaintiffs must be able to point to some concrete adverse impact suffered as a result of the defendants’ behavior.  The Morrises have pointed to no such harm.

Similarly she held that the evidence did not support claims of a violation of §3604(c), saying in part:

Viewing the letter as a whole, an ordinary reader would understand the Board to have indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based not on whether the prospective homeowners were themselves religious or nonreligious, Christian or atheist, but on whether the event they proposed to host once a year would disturb the neighbors, both by its size and raucousness and by offending non-Christians. 

However, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that the Homeowners Association violated §3617 of the Act, saying in part:

The Board’s letter to the Morrises could reasonably be read to indicate that the program’s association with the Christian faith was one consideration in the Board’s opposition to the show....

These statements sufficiently support an inference by the jury that an anti-Christian purpose was at least a motivating factor in the Board’s conduct regarding the proposed Christmas event, independent of any other concerns also underlying that conduct.  And given this permissible inference, there was sufficient evidence for the jury rationally to conclude that the Board interfered with the Morrises’ exercise of their right to purchase and enjoy their home at least in part because of their religious expression, and therefore violated § 3617 of the FHA.

Judge Berzon went on to conclude that on the facts of this case, the Homeowners Association was not liable for harassing conduct of subdivision residents.

Judge Tashima dissented in part, contending that the district court correctly granted judgment for the Homeowners Association on all claims because the Homeowners Association's concern was with the size and scale of the Morrises' holiday events, not with the Morrises' religion.

Judge Collins dissented in part saying that he would have affirmed the jury's finding of liability on all the Morrises' claims.

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.

Rabbi Sues Homeowners' Association for Blocking Synagogue Construction

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Chabad rabbi and related plaintiffs charging a Homeowners' Association with religious discrimination in violation of state and federal Fair Housing Acts and civil rights protections. The complaint (full text) in Hertzel v. Loggers' Run, Inc., (SD FL, filed 5/17/2024), alleges in part:

This action arises out of a campaign by the HOA... to discriminate against the Hertzels and, more broadly, to slow the growth of Jews within the Loggers’ Run planned residential community..... 

The campaign began when the Hertzels began exploring the possibility of constructing a synagogue within Loggers’ Run, which they proposed locating near multiple similarly situated churches attended by HOA board members and residents. This synagogue is essential to the growth of the Orthodox Jewish community within Loggers’ Run because central tenets of that faith prohibit driving to religious services on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Members of the HOA Board intervened to prevent the HOA from even considering the Hertzels’ proposal.... Although the HOA would eventually muster pretextual reasons for the rejection, individual members of the HOA and its agents were shockingly honest, explaining that the HOA “didn’t want Jews” in Loggers’ Run and, more recently, that a synagogue would be constructed over then-HOA Board President Harp’s “dead body.”

First Liberty 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....

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Employee's Religious Discrimination Claim Over Objection To LGBTQ+ Display Online

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Snyder v. Arconic Corp. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Iowa federal district court in Snyder v. Arconic Corp., (SD IA, Aug. 31, 2023), dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by an employee who was fired for placing a post on the company's intranet objecting to a rainbow-colored heart on the company's intranet publicizing a support group for LGBTQ+ employees. The employee's post read:  "Its a (sic.) abomination to God. Rainbow is not meant to be displayed as a sign for sexual gender." He contended that the post was religiously motivated. The district court held that the employee had not shown a conflict between his religious practices and the company's diversity policy. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the oral arguments.

Tennessee Passes Law Banning Religious and Ideological Discrimination by Banks and Insurance Companies

The Tennessee legislature this week gave final approval to HB 2100 (full text) which prohibits banks and insurance companies from denying or cancelling services based on a customer's religious beliefs, practices or affiliations or the customer's political opinions, speech or affiliations. The bill also bans financial institutions and insurance companies from discriminating against customers based on a number of other factors such as firearm ownership, failure to meet environmental standards, or support of the government in combatting illegal immigration, drug trafficking or human trafficking. However, the bill permits financial institutions or insurance companies that claim a religious purpose to provide or deny service based on a customer's religious beliefs, exercise, or affiliation. The bill now goes to Governor Bill Lee for his signature. ADF issued a press release on the passage of the legislation.

New Idaho Law Bars Adverse Action Because of Religious Conduct in Adoption, Foster Care, Licensing and State Contracting

On Monday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 578 (full text) which prohibits state and local governments from treating adversely any adoption or foster care agency that declines to provide services because of a sincerely held religious belief. The new law also provides:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person who the state grants custody of a foster or adoptive child wholly or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs, or raises a child, or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child, based on or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief. The state government may consider whether a person shares the same religious or faith tradition as a foster or adoptive child when considering placement of the child in order to prioritize placement with a person of the same religious or faith tradition.

The new law goes on to provide that the state cannot deny licensing or the award of a contract to a person because the person believes, maintains policies and procedures, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Federal Agencies Finalize Rule Amendments on Grants to Faith-Based Organizations

On March 4, nine federal agencies published a 52-page joint release titled Partnerships With Faith-Based and Neighborhood Organizations (full text) in the Federal Register amending rules adopted by them during the Trump Administration. In a press release, Americans United summarizes the rule changes in part as follows:

The new regulations:

• Reinstate the requirement that people seeking services be informed of their religious freedom rights, which include that:

• They can’t be discriminated against because of their religion or because they are nonreligious.

• They can’t be required to pray or participate in religious activities.

• They can file a complaint if their rights are violated.

• Reinstate safeguards that ensure that people who obtain social services through vouchers are not forced to attend or participate in religious activities.

• Eliminate Trump-era provisions that were designed to allow social service providers to refuse to provide key services....

Christian Organization Challenges Grant Rule Barring Religious Favoritism in Hiring

Suit was filed this week in an Oregon federal district court challenging an anti-discrimination rule of the Oregon Department of Education that disqualified a Christian youth-mentoring ministry from receiving $410,000 in grants for which it had initially been selected. The Christian group requires all of its board members, its 30 employees and 100+ volunteers to adhere to the organization's Statement of Faith. The Grant Program's rule bars grantees from favoring co-religionists as employees or volunteers. The complaint (full text) in Yourh 71Five Ministries v. Williams, (D OR, filed 3/4/2024), contends that the rule violates its Free Exercise and Free Expression rights, saying in part:

Because it emphasizes one-to-one mentoring and creating authentic, trusting relationships, 71Five Ministries depends on its staff and volunteers to fulfill the ministry’s distinctly Christian mission and purpose....

Defendants cannot disqualify otherwise eligible religious organizations from participation in otherwise available government benefit programs, including the Youth Community Investment Grant Program, “solely because of their religious character,”

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

National Guard General Seeks $1.6M Damages for Antisemitic Harassment and Termination

A suit charging antisemitic discrimination was filed last week in a California state trial court by a retired Brigadier General in the Air National Guard against his former supervisor as well as against the state of California, the California Military Department and California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking $1.6 million in damages and injunctive relief. The complaint (full text) in Magram v. Beevers, (CA Super. Ct., filed 1/24/2024), alleges in part:

This case is an action for Religious Discrimination, Harassment, and Wrongful Termination in violation of California Government Code § 12940, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) arising out of Magram’s 37-plus years of employment with the California Air Guard and United States Air Force, which includes 14-plus years as a full time officer on State Active Duty with the CMD. Beevers discriminated against Magram by harassing and wrongfully terminating Magram because of Magram’s Jewish faith, Jewish heritage, and Magram’s complaints about Beevers’ anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment. Beevers’ discrimination against Magram violated FEHA and California public policy. The State of California, CMD, and Governor Newsom were aware of Beevers’ anti-Semitism, Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign, and Beevers’ retaliation against Magram. The State California, CMD and Governor Newsom facilitated and ratified Beevers’ anti-Semitism and Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign against Magram.

Stars and Stripes reports on the lawsuit.

Presumption of Discrimination in Virginia Fair housing Law Held Unconstitutional

 In Carter v. Virginia Real Estate Board, (VA Cir. Ct., Jan. 24, 2024), a Virginia state trial court held unconstitutional a portion of Virginia's Fair Housing Law (§36-96.3) that provides:

The use of words or symbols associated with a particular religion, national origin, sex, or race shall be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference under this chapter that shall not be overcome by a general disclaimer. However, reference alone to places of worship, including churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques, in any such notice, statement, or advertisement shall not be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference....

In the case, a realtor's e-mails contained a signature line reading "For Faith and Freedom, Jesus Loves You, and with God all things are Possible." Her e-mails also contained a personal statement reading "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16". The Virginia Real Estate Board began an investigation of the realtor based on these religious statements. The court invalidated this portion of the Fair Housing Law, saying in part:

[This section of the] Virginia Fair Housing Law ... infringes the natural right of individuals to express their identity and, as such, stands in sharp contrast to the freedom of Virginians and Americans to express their identity that lie at the heart of the First Amendment ... and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. Moreover, the statute restricts individual expression with a sweeping generalization so broad that any expression of individual identity related to religion, national origin, sex, or race is deemed tantamount to a desire to engage in unlawful discrimination.... Virginia's presumption of animus in the Fair Housing Law inequitably and overbroadly inhibits those rights, and as such, it fails to give the breathing space that First Amendment freedoms require....

ACLJ issued a press release announcing the decision.

School Did Not Violate Title VII in Denying Religious Exemption to Covid Rules

In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, (ED NY, Jan. 12, 2024), a New York federal district court held that a school district did not violate title VII's ban on religious discrimination in employment when it refused to accommodate a school psychologist's religious objection to a state mandate to either test weekly for Covid or show proof of vaccination.  Plaintiff considered both of these alternatives to be medical interventions that would violate her faith in God's ability to protect her and keep her healthy.  She instead sought as an accommodation either periodically completing a health questionnaire or working remotely. Rejecting those alternatives, the school placed her on unpaid leave. The court said in part:

The state’s test-or-vaccination requirement was a neutral law of general applicability that only incidentally affected employees with religious objections and did not “target[] religious conduct for distinctive treatment.” ... The requirement is, therefore, constitutionally permissible if it survives rational basis review.... The state’s requirement clearly satisfies this standard....

Plaintiff’s claim that she was unlawfully denied a religious accommodation also fails....

A proposed accommodation becomes an undue hardship for an employer if it would cause the employer to violate the law....

Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposed accommodation of working remotely also did not violate Title VII.... [H]er proposal that she be permitted to work remotely going forward included a request that Defendant cut back on her job responsibilities to accommodate remote work.... Plaintiff, therefore, implicitly conceded that her proposed accommodation would “involve the elimination of an essential function of [her] job,” thereby rendering the proposal unreasonable....

The court also concluded that plaintiff's employer did not violate the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act.

EEOC Announces Settlements In 2 Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

In the last several days, the EEOC has announced settlements in two unrelated Title VII religious discrimination suits filed by the agency.  Last week the EEOC announced that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system's flu vaccine requirement. The employee, who worked primarily outside and had limited contact with the public or other staff, had been granted an exemption in 2017 and 2018, but was denied one and fired in 2019. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Children's Healthcare will also modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.

Yesterday the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc., a company that provides protective services to federal agencies, will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must wear beards. The company denied the accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a documented religious leader. The company will also institute a new religious accommodation policy.