Employee Sues After Being Fired For Religious Objection To Rainbow As Gay Pride Symbol

Suit was filed this week in an Iowa federal district court by a former employee of a metal engineering and manufacturing company who says he was fired for expressing his Christian beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Snyder v. Arconic, Inc., (SD IA, filed 5/18/2022), charges religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and state law. It alleges:

In June 2021, in attempting to respond to an anonymous company survey, Mr. Snyder briefly commented that the company’s use of the rainbow to promote “Gay Pride Month” was “an abomination to God,” as the rainbow “is not meant to be a sign for sexual gender.”

... Arconic informed Mr. Snyder that his comment had been posted publicly on the company “intranet”—which was not Mr. Snyder’s intent—and that it had offended a fellow employee. Mr. Snyder was summarily suspended and then terminated, allegedly for violating the company’s “diversity policy.”

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Christian Flight Attendants Sue After Being Fired For Their Posted Views On LGBTQ Rights

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by two Alaska Air flight attendants who allege, under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws, illegal religious discrimination, hostile work environment, workplace harassment and retaliation.  The flight attendants were fired after they posted on an internal employee message board their opposition to the Airline's support for the federal Equality Act which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as groups protected against workplace discrimination. According to the complaint (full text) in Brown v. Alaska Airlines Inc., (WD WA., filed 5/17/2022):

3.... Marli and Lacey felt compelled by their Christian faith to post one comment each, asking about the impact of the Equality Act on civil rights for religion and women in the workplace.

4. Alaska Airlines responded to Marli and Lacey’s posts by immediately removing Marli and Lacey from their flight schedules, terminating their employment, and disparaging their religious expression and beliefs as “discriminatory,” “hateful,” and “offensive.”

5. When Marli and Lacey—both union members—faced termination because of their religious practices and beliefs, AFA failed to effectively represent them, ignoring civil rights laws prohibiting both employers and unions from discriminating on the basis of religion.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Court Enjoins Application To Christian Employers Of Protections For Gender Transition Services

In Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, (D ND, May 16, 2022), a North Dakota federal district court, responding to a suit by an employers' organization challenging federal agency interpretations of anti-discrimination requirements, issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from interpreting Title VII to require plaintiff's members to provide insurance coverage for gender transition services. It also enjoined HHS from using Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to impose on plaintiff's members who are health care providers an obligation to furnish or facilitate gender transition services or to restrict their speech on gender identity issues. The court said in part:

Defendants argue they will comply with RFRA but cannot predict ahead of time how RFRA will apply to the facts of a particular matter.... Religious freedom cannot be encumbered on a case-by-case basis.... The Alliance maintains if the government interest is to increase access to gender transition services, the government itself could assume the costs for those unable to afford them or obtain them under their employer’s religious objections in the health insurance policies. The Alliance reiterates the government could also provide subsidies, reimbursements, tax credits or deductions. Defendants must demonstrate a compelling interest to the Alliance’s substantial burden and have failed to do so. Determining on a case-by-case basis if a religious exemption should apply is certainly not the least restrictive means.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Free Exercise Challenge To Washington Vaccine Mandate Is Dismissed

 In Wise v. Inslee, (ED WA, April 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed various challenges to Washington state's vaccine mandate for certain state employees, including free exercise, Title VII religious discrimination, and Establishment Clause claims. The court said in part:

... [T]he State clearly has a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19, an interest that has been endorsed by the Ninth Circuit.... Additionally, the Proclamation is rationally related to that interest because it is based on overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and increasing vaccination rates among those employees who come into regular contact with vulnerable populations is a rational action to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the Proclamation easily survives federal constitutional scrutiny....

Seventh Day Adventist Can Proceed With Title VII Suit

In Weston v. Sears, (SD OH, April 5, 2022), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff, a Seventh Day Adventist, be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis with her Title VII claim for religious discrimination.  She was fired for failing, until after the end of her Sabbath, to return multiple phone calls from her manager. However plaintiff is required to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing charges with the EEOC or her state agency.

No Title VII Violation In Denying Hospital Employee 7 Days Off For Jewish Holiday Observance

In Wagner v. Saint Joseph's/ Candler Health Systems, Inc., (SD GA, March 28, 2022), a Georgia federal district court held that a hospital did not violate Title VII when it fired an Orthodox Jewish admissions notification specialist for taking off four days, in addition to the three days that were approved, to observe the Fall Jewish holidays. The court said in part:

The evidence shows that, due to the unique nature of Wagner’s job, accommodating her request would have required her supervisors and fellow employees ... to perform Wagner’s job for seven days over a seventeen-workday period. The parties agree that Wagner’s job was “time-sensitive” and that there were financial ramifications for the Hospital if Wagner (or whoever was performing her job) failed to notify insurance companies of inpatient stays involving one of their insureds within twenty-four hours.... Wagner also concedes that if the Hospital were to have granted her seven days off to observe the October High Holidays, [fellow employees] ... would have had to bear an additional workload, which would have taken them away from their own jobs....

This evidence suggests that the Hospital would have—and ultimately did— endure more than a de minimis cost in order to accommodate Wagner’s request to miss seven days of work to observe the October High Holidays.

Mandatory LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Training Did Not Violate Title VII

In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, (WD NY, Feb. 16, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed Title VII and state law religious discrimination claims brought by Raymond Zdunski, an account clerk at the Board of Cooperative Educational Services.  BOCES required all of its employees to attend LGBTQ anti-discrimination training after one of its employees requested accommodation for gender transition.  Zdunski refused, contending that the training was aimed at changing his religious beliefs on gender and sexuality and that attending would violate his religious beliefs. He was fired for insubordination. The court said in part:

Mr. Zdunski has not presented any evidence that the trainings were directed toward him or other Christian employees in a discriminatory manner....

Here, Mr. Zdunski's proposed accommodation—that he be excused from the mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination training—amounts to more than a de minimis cost to his employer's business operations. BOCES is bound by New York State law to provide annual anti-discrimination trainings for all employees and to maintain "an environment free of discrimination and harassment." See N.Y. Educ. Law Tit. 1 Art. 2 §§ 10, 13. Allowing Mr. Zdunski's requested accommodation to forego anti-discrimination trainings would have put his employer in the position of violating the training requirements set forth in DASA. An accommodation that would require an employer to run afoul of state law constitutes a substantial hardship and would be more than a de minimis cost to the employer.

5th Circuit: United Airlines Employees Irreparably Injured By Religious Coercion Over COVID Vaccine

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 per curiam decision, reversed a Texas federal district court's decision that no "irreparable injury" had been suffered by United Airlines employees who were placed on unpaid leave after they refused for religious reasons to comply with the company's COVID vaccine mandate.  The district court held that the employees were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because their loss of income could be remedied by an award of damages in an action under Title VII.  The 5th Circuit majority disagreed, saying in part:

Critically, we do not decide whether United or any other entity may impose a vaccine mandate. Nor do we decide whether plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to a preliminary injunction. The district court denied such an injunction on one narrow ground; we reverse on that one narrow ground and remand for further consideration....

Properly understood, the plaintiffs are alleging two distinct harms— one of which is reparable ..., and the other of which is irreparable.... The first is United’s decision to place them on indefinite unpaid leave; that harm, and any harm that flows from it, can be remedied through backpay, reinstatement, or otherwise. The second form of harm flows from United’s decision to coerce the plaintiffs into violating their religious convictions; that harm and that harm alone is irreparable and supports a preliminary injunction.

Judge Smith wrote a stinging 56-page dissent, saying in part:

In its alacrity to play CEO of a multinational corporation, the majority shatters every dish in the china shop. It rewrites Title VII to create a new cause of action. It twists the record to fit that invention. It defies our precedent and the commands of the Supreme Court. But this majority is no senseless bull. Knowing exactly what it has wrought, the majority declares that its unsigned writing will apply to these parties only. By stripping its judgment of precedential effect, the majority all but admits that its screed could not survive the scrutiny of the en banc court....

For every conceivable reason that the plaintiffs could lose this appeal, they should. The statute does not allow the relief they seek. Nor do our precedents; if they did, the Supreme Court has overruled them. If they have not been overruled, fifty years of precedent and centuries of Anglo-American remedies law show that preliminary relief may not issue. If it could issue, it shouldn’t, because the only plaintiffs with standing claim no harm from the “impossible choice” between full postjudgment relief and eternal damnation.

Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

Health Care Company Will Pay $75,000 To Settle Christian Nurse's Religious Accommodation Claim

The EEOC announced yesterday that Wellpath, a provider of health services in correctional institutions, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination claim brought by the EEOC on behalf an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian nurse who was hired for a Texas jail.  According to the EEOC:

Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.

Under the settlement agreement, Wellpath will pay the nurse $75,000 in back pay and damages, and will provide anti-discrimination training and notice of rights to employees.

Delivery Service Settles EEOC Suit Charging Failure To Accommodate Church Attendance

The EEOC announced yesterday that Tampa Bay Delivery Service, an Amazon delivery provider, has settled a religious discrimination suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of a driver who was fired for refusing Sunday shifts in order to attend church services. The company will pay $50,000 in damages, will provide training on religious discrimination to managers and dispatchers, and will designate a religious accommodation coordinator.

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Reasonable Accommodation Case

Yesterday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Groff v. DeJoy.  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court (full text of district court opinion) dismissed Title VII claims brought by an Evangelical Christian postal worker who resigned after receiving warning letters and suspensions for refusing to work on Sundays. The district court rejected claims of religious discrimination and held that plaintiff had been offered shift swapping that met the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of Title VII.  The Third Circuit has not previously decided an issue on which the Circuits are split-- whether an employer must wholly eliminate a conflict between work and religion in order for an accommodation to be reasonable under Title VII. The district court concluded that complete elimination is not required.

Florida Hotel Settles EEOC Suit On Behalf Of 7th Day Adventist For $99,000

EEOC announced this week that a Sunny Isles Beach, Florida resort hotel, Noble House Solé, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination claim by paying $99,000 to a terminated employee, and also to create an anti-discrimination policy and to train employees regarding religious accommodation.  The complaint was brought by a Seventh Day Adventist employee who worked a room attendant. She needed Saturdays off. According to the EEOC:

Solé Miami accommodated the employee’s Sabbath observance for over ten months after she began her employment without incident.  Unfortunately, when a new supervisor came onboard, Solé Miami scheduled the employee to work on a Saturday.  When the employee missed work, Solé Miami immediately terminated her, even though employees that missed work for non-religious reasons were given multiple warnings prior to termination.

Insurance Brokerage Firm Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

EEOC announced yesterday that Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., an insurance brokerage firm, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit by paying $40,000 in damages to an underwriting associate it fired, explaining:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, filed last year, Gallagher knew of Yu Rex Noda’s Christian religious practices, including fasting in conjunction with Lent. As set out in the EEOC’s complaint, a “Termination Memo” Gallagher issued cited “fasting” and “meditating” among reasons for firing Noda.

The company will also provide anti-discrimination training to Midwest regional managers.

Greyhound Settles EEOC Religious Accommodation Lawsuit

The EEOC announced this week that Greyhound Lines has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it on behalf of a Muslim woman who, after being accepted into the bus line's driver training program, was told she could not wear an abaya. The abaya is a loose fitting outer garment worn because of religious beliefs regarding modesty. Greyhound will pay $45,000 in damages, and will train its human resource and hiring personnel on handling of religious accommodations.

6th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Minister's Hostile Work Environment Claim

In Middleton v. United Church of Christ Board, (6th Cir., Nov. 22, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII racial discrimination suit brought by a minister claiming an anti-Black hostile work environment. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that while plaintiff may have been treated badly, it did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Two of the judges (Boggs and Larsen, JJ) went on to hold:

[T]he ministerial exception bars any judicial consideration of a church’s tangible employment actions taken against a minister in a discrimination claim, regardless of its underlying basis....  Otherwise, the church would be required to respond that its tangible employment actions were motivated not by discriminatory animus, but by nondiscriminatory reasons.... [T]he court would then be required to conduct a pretext inquiry to determine the church’s true motivation. This would involve an examination of the church’s reasons for determining the fitness and qualifications of its ministers—a determination necessarily informed by religious belief. This is precisely the kind of state inquiry into church employment decisions that the First Amendment forbids.

Judge Moore in a concurring opinion argued that the court need not reach the ministerial exception issue. [Thanks to Heather Kimmel for the lead.] 

 

Religious Exemptions From Title VII Allow LGBTQ Employment Discrimination

In Bear Creek Bible Church v. EEOC, (ND TX, Oct. 31, 2021), a Christian church and a Christian-owned business filed a class action in a Texas federal district court seeking religious exemptions from provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock case, Title VII's ban on sex discrimination prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The court, in a 70-page opinion, held that as to churches and similar religious employers, the religious organization exemption in Title VII allows more than just religious discrimination:

[A] religious employer is not liable under Title VII when it refuses to employ an individual because of sexual orientation or gender expression, based on religious observance, practice, or belief.

As to businesses that assert a religious objection to homosexual and transgender behavior, the court held that Title VII substantially burdens their religious exercise in conducting business, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as of the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise and Freedom of Association protections.

The court went on to rule on several other questions which the Supreme Court's Bostock decision arguably left unresolved. It concluded: 

• Title VII bars discrimination against bisexuals, just as it does against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals. 
• Policies that require employees to refrain from certain sexual activities, including sodomy, premarital sex, adultery, and other sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman are permitted because they do not apply exclusively to bar homosexual conduct.
• Sex-specific dress codes based on biological sex are permitted because they apply evenly to those who identify with their biological sex and to transgender individuals.
• Policies that prohibit employees from obtaining genital modification surgery or hormone treatment for gender dysphoria violate Title VII.
• Title VII allows employers to have policies that promote privacy, such as requiring the use of separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Christian Employers Group Challenges HHS And EEOC Protection for Transgender Health Care

Suit was filed this week in a North Dakota federal district court by a Christian membership ministry that serves for-profit and non-profit employers challenging two federal rules on health care coverage for gender transition surgery. At issue are (1) an EEOC interpretation of Title VII that requires employers to cover gender transition services in their health plans; and (2) An HHS non-discrimination requirement that forces religiously-affiliated healthcare providers to perform gender transition surgeries, procedures, counseling, and treatments. The complaint (full text) Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. EEOC, (D ND, filed 10/18/21), alleges in part:

31. CEA members believe and teach that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and that the two, distinct biological sexes of male and female are complementary and together reflect the image and nature of God.

32. CEA members believe and teach that rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person.

The suit alleges violations of RFRA, free exercise and free speech protections. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Maine's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Upheld

In Jane Does 1-6 v. Mills, (D ME, Oct. 13, 2021), a Maine federal district court rejected claims by health care employees that Maine violated their free exercise rights when it eliminated religious exemptions from its COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers. The court, denying a preliminary injunction, said in part:

Here, the Rule does not compel the Plaintiffs to be vaccinated against their will, and the Plaintiffs have, in fact, freely exercised their religious beliefs by declining to be vaccinated. This is not to minimize the seriousness of the indirect consequences of the Plaintiffs’ refusal to be vaccinated, as it affects their employment. Nonetheless, the Rule has not prevented the Plaintiffs from staying true to their professed religious beliefs....

The medical exemption at issue here was adopted to protect persons whose health may be jeopardized by receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine’s core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. Because the medical exemption serves the core purpose of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, it does not reflect a value judgment prioritizing a purely secular interest ...—over religious interests.

In addition, the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health—for example, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination requirements—to the same extent that it burdens religious beliefs....

The court rejected plaintiffs' Title VII failure to accommodate claim by concluding that plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies.

UPDATE: After the 1st Circuit refused to issue an injunction pending appeal, plaintiffs filed a Motion For Writ of Injunction Pending Appeal with the U.S. Supreme court on Oct. 15. (Liberty Counsel press release.)

New York Enjoined Over Elimination of Religious Exemptions In Vaccine Mandate

In Dr. A v. Hochul, (ND NY, Oct. 12, 2021), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to health care workers who object to the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID. The court concluded that the absence of an exemption conflicts with the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII and with the Free Exercise clause.  The court said in part:

What matters here is not whether a religious practitioner would win or lose a future Title VII lawsuit. What matters is that plaintiffs’ current showing establishes that § 2.61 has effectively foreclosed the pathway to seeking a religious accommodation that is guaranteed under Title VII.....

The court also concluded that the law is neither neutral nor generally applicable. The state's original vaccine mandate included both medical and religious exemptions. Subsequently religious exemptions were eliminated. The court said in part:

This intentional change in language is the kind of “religious gerrymander” that triggers heightened scrutiny.

The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. AP reports on the decision.

 

Rhode Island Vaccine Mandate, Silent On Religious Exemptions, Is Upheld

In Dr. T v. Alexander-Scott, (D RI, Sept. 30, 2021), a Rhode Island federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of a Rhode Island Department of Health Emergency Regulation that requires all healthcare workers (except if medically exempt) to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Plaintiffs challenge the absence of a provision for religious exemptions.  Rejecting plaintiffs' 1st Amendment challenge, the court held that the regulation is a neutral law of general applicability. Responding to plaintiffs' claim that the Regulation is in conflict with Title VII, the court said in part:

Nothing in the language [of the Regulation] prevents any employer from providing a reasonable accommodation to an employee who seeks one in accord with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Indeed, the Regulation is silent on the issue of religious exemptions. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices, or observances only to the extent that doing so would not impose “undue hardship” on the employer.... While the Regulation may make it more difficult for employers to accommodate religious objections; it does not create a “physical impossibility.”