Summary Judgment Denied In Rastafarian's Title VII "Failure To Accommodate" Claim

 In EEOC v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., (MD TN, Aug. 20, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to the EEOC which claims that Publix Supermarkets refused to accommodate Guy Usher's Rastafarian religious beliefs that require him to wear his hair in dreadlocks. The court held that disputed issues of fact remain as to whether the Usher informed Publix that its grooming policy conflicts with his religious beliefs, and that factual questions remain as to whether Usher holds sincere religious beliefs on the matter. The court also allowed the EEOC to move ahead with its failure-to-hire claim, but not with its constructive discharge claim.

McDonald's Franchisee Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

The EEOC announced yesterday that an Orlando, Florida McDonald's franchisee has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the EEOC.  The restaurant refused to hire a Jewish applicant as a part-time maintenance worker because the applicant would not shave his beard. It refused to create an accommodation to its policy that all employees must be completely clean shaven, even though the applicant offered to wear his beard in a net.  A 2½ year consent decree gives damages of $69,555 to the applicant and requires the franchisee to change its grooming policies, conduct anti-discrimination training and take other compliance steps.

EEOC Sues Airline Over Requiring Pilot To Attend Religious AA Program

The EEOC this week filed a lawsuit against United Airlines charging that it did not adequately accommodate the religious beliefs of a Buddhist pilot.  In its press release, the EEOC said in part:

United operates a program for its pilots with substance abuse problems that provides them treatment and sponsors them to obtain new medical certificates from the FAA. One of the requirements of United’s program is that pilots regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”). The pilot, who is Buddhist, objected to the religious content of AA and sought to substitute regular attendance at a Buddhism-based peer support group. United refused to accommodate his religious objection and, as a result, the pilot was unable to obtain a new FAA medical certificate permitting him to fly again, the agency charged....

 “Employers have the affirmative obligation to modify their policies to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs,” said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein. “Despite this obligation, United was inflexible and refused to make a modest change its program that would have caused them no hardship.”

Paddle Your Own Kanoo reports on the suit.

EEOC Wins Suit On Behalf of Fired Jehovah's Witness

The EEOC announced yesterday that a New York federal district court has entered a consent decree in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a Jehovah's Witness who was fired as an administrative assistant at a Manhattan pediatric medical practice:

Pediatrics 2000 was aware that its worker was a Jehovah’s Witness when she was hired and initially accommodated her request not to work on Wednesdays due to her religious practices on that day. But then the company demonstrated animus toward her religion, saying that her religion was a “cult,” and placed her on probation for “missing” work on Wednesdays. When the worker requested to be excused from the company’s holiday party for religious reasons, she was fired — even though other employees were permitted to miss the party for non-religious reasons....

The decree gives $68,000 in lost wages and other damages for the worker and grants injunctive relief, including: the creation of anti-discrimination policies and procedures....

Cert. Petition Filed In Title VII Reasonable Accommodation Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed this week in Small v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water, (Sup. Ct., file 6/16/2020). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an employment discrimination claim by a Jehovah's Witness, concluding that Memphis Light adequately accommodated their employee's religious beliefs when it allowed him to swap shifts with other employees. (See prior posting.) The petition for review presents the question as:

Whether Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977), which stated that employers suffer an “undue hardship” in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise whenever doing so would require them “to bear more than a de minimis cost,” misinterprets § 2000e(j) and should be overruled.

[Thanks to Jim Sonne for the lead.]

Supreme Court: Title VII Bans LGBT Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, (Sup. Ct., June 15, 2020), held that the provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibit discrimination in employment "because of sex" protect gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.  In an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the court said in part:

Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.  When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest.  Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Justice Alito filed a dissent, joined by Justice Thomas, saying in part:

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”  And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added)…. 

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Justice Kavanaugh also filed a dissent, saying in part:

Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.

The Court's opinion covered three cases, Bostock, Altitude Express, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes. Religion News Service reports on the decision.

Catholic Hospital Is Within Title VII Exemption

In Boydston v. Mercy Hospital Ardmore, Inc., (WD OK, March 25, 2020), an Oklahoma federal district court held that a Catholic hospital and its parent bodies are religious entities that are exempt under (42 USC §2000e-1(a)) from the religious discrimination prohibitions of Title VII.  Based on that conclusion, the court dismissed the Title VII (and parallel state anti-discrimination law) claims of religious discrimination brought by a power plant technician at the hospital.

6th Circuit Upholds Company's Religious Accommodation For Jehovah's Witness

In Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, (6th Cir., March 12, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an employment discrimination claim by a Jehovah's Witness. The court concluded that Memphis Light adequately accommodated their employee's religious beliefs when it allowed him to swap shifts with other employees. Judge Thapar filed a concurring opinion, criticizing the Supreme court's Hardison decision.

Court Interprets Defenses Under Illinois RFRA and Right of Conscience Act

In Rojas v. Martell, (IL App., March 6, 2020), an Illinois state appellate court answered four certified questions on the state's  Health Care Right of Conscience Act and its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court held that neither the analytic framework not the reasonable accommodation defense of Title VII should be read into these state statutes. It also concluded that transfer of an employee to a job that does not include the religiously objectionable duties may be permissible under the Right of Conscience Act. The issues arose in a case in which a county health department nurse claimed that the health department discriminated against her after she asserted that her Catholic religious beliefs prevented her from providing birth control, from providing Plan B emergency contraception, and from making abortion referrals.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., (Docket No. 18-349. certiorari denied 2/24/2020). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a suit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation, held that Walgreen had offered reasonable accommodations for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. (See prior posting). In a concurring opinion (full text) accompanying the denial of cert, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, said that in an appropriate case the Court should reconsider its holding in the Hardison case that an employer need accommodate an employee's religious observance only if it imposes no more than a de minimis hardship on the employer. They concluded however that "this case does not present a good vehicle for revisiting Hardison."

Fruit Company Settles Suit Over Refusal To Accommodate Sevent Day Adventist

The EEOC announced yesterday that the North Carolina-based Cottle Strawberry Nursery has settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the agency. The company was charged with firing a Seventh Day Adventist because she refused to work on Saturdays.  In the settlement it agreed to pay $12,500 in damages and develop a religious accommodation policy.

5th Circuit: Firefighter Was Offered Reasonable Accommodation of His Anti-Vaccination Beliefs

In Horvath v. City of Leander, Texas, (5th Cir., Jan. 9, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by Brett Horvath, a Baptist minister who was employed as a driver/ pump operator by the Leander, Texas Fire Department.  As recounted by the court:

In 2016, the Fire Department began requiring TDAP vaccinations, to which Horvath objected on religious grounds. He was given a choice between two accommodations: transfer to a code enforcement job that did not require a vaccination, or wear a respirator mask during his shifts, keep a log of his temperature, and submit to additional medical testing  He did not accept either accommodation and was fired by Fire Chief Bill Gardner for insubordination. Horvath filed suit against Chief Gardner and the City, alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 premised on violations of his First Amendment Free Exercise rights.

The majority concluded that the city had offered Horvath reasonable accommodations of his religious beliefs, and that the respirator alternative did not burden his religious beliefs.

Judge Ho filed a lengthy opinion dissenting in part. He was very critical of both the Supreme Court's Smith precedent and the current jurisprudence on qualified immunity.

Teacher Can Pursue Title VII Claims In Dispute Over Transgender Student Policy

Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., (SD IN, Jan. 8, 2020), involved a suit by a former high school music teacher who was forced to resign for resisting the school's policy that required teachers to address transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns.Plaintiff claimed that the requirement violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. The court dismissed plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment claims, but allowed him to move forward on his claims of failure to accommodate in violation of Title VII, and his Title VII retaliation claim.

Title VII Suit Against Church Body Can Move Ahead

In Edley-Worford v. Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church, (ED VA, Dec. 30, 2019), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII claim by the former Director of Inclusivity and Lay Leadership Excellence in a church organization.  Plaintiff, an African American woman, claimed she was given an unfair workload in relation to those of her Caucasian co-workers and was fired when she complained to the Board of Laity and Personnel Committee. Defendants unsuccessfully raised defenses of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine.

3rd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Religious Discrimination Suit

In Darby v. Temple University, (3d Cir., Dec. 4, 2019), the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claim under Title VII that he was fired by Temple University because of his religion.  The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] states that he wore a cross on a chain around his neck, that he read the bible on breaks, that he spoke openly about attending church services, and that he was employed at Temple for a lengthy period of time. But none of the evidence he produced is sufficient to reasonably infer that his coworkers knew his Baptist identity. More important, none of it relates directly to the person, Thomas Johnston, who terminated his employment. He does not proffer any evidence to show that Johnston knew of his religious affiliation.

Penn Live reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Rules In Firefighter's Claim of Retaliation for Religious Speech

In Hudson v. City of Highland Park, Michigan, (6th Cir., Nov. 22, 2019), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in part reversed a district court's dismissal of claims by a firefighter that he was dismissed in retaliation for his religious views.  The court summarized the facts:

Hudson worked for the Highland Park Fire Department from 2002 to 2015. Over time, he developed a reputation for two things: being an effective firefighter and being outspoken about his Christian faith. According to Hudson, the other firefighters had reputations too—for watching pornography in communal spaces and engaging in extra-marital affairs at the fire station. All of this created tension. He criticized their behavior, and they responded with disrespectful comments about his religious practices and sexual orientation. The back and forth went on for five years.

Hudson was fired after he claimed extra hours on his time sheet and reported he had worked the same shift for two different employers. The 6th Circuit held, however, that Hudson had shown enough to avoid dismissal on the pleadings of his claim that the Chief had fired him because of his speech. The court however affirmed the dismissal of his Title VII religious discrimination claim, saying in part:

Employees are free to speak out about misconduct in the workplace without subjecting themselves to discharge for rocking the boat.... Employees are no less free to root legitimate criticisms about the workplace in their faith than in any other aspects of their worldview. For many people of faith, their religion is not an abstraction. It has consequences for how they behave and may require them to be witnesses and examples for their faith. That reality does not permit differential treatment of them because they criticize behavior on moral grounds stemming from religious convictions as opposed to moral grounds stemming from secular convictions. “Let firemen be firemen” is not a cognizable defense to Title VII claims based on gender discrimination, race discrimination, or faith-based discrimination.

Even so, Hudson’s disparate treatment claim fails.... He cannot show that the city’s justification for his discharge amounted to a pretextual basis for discriminating against him because of his faith. The fire department put forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for treating Hudson differently. He falsified his time-sheets while other firefighters did not.

Judge Kethledge, dissenting in part, would have affirmed the dismissal of Hudson's claim that he was fired in retaliation for his speech. Judge Stranch dissented in part, contending that Hudson should have been allowed to move ahead on his hostile work environment claim which the majority held should be dismissed.

EEOC Sues Over Harassment of Pentecostal Employees

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against Service Caster Corp. alleging discrimination and harassment of three employees because of their Puerto Rican national origin and their Pentecostal religion. The complaint (full text) in EEOC v. Service Caster Corp., (ED PA, filed 9/30/2019), alleges in part that the plant manager repeatedly referred to Pentecostalism as a " disgusting cult".

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In LGBTQ Employment Discrimination Cases

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases involving whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers employment discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals.  Two of the cases (consolidated for oral argument) involve whether the ban on discrimination on the "because of sex" covers sexual orientation discrimination.  The cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (case page on SCOTUSblog) and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda (case page on SCOTUSblog). Here is the transcript of the full oral argument. The third case is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (case page on SCOTUSblog). It raises the question of whether Title VII's ban on "sex" discrimination protects transgender individuals from employment discrimination.  Here is the transcript of the full oral argument. CNN reports on the oral arguments.

EEOC Sues Over Firing of Jehovah's Witness Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed suit in a New York federal district court against Pedidatrics 2000 for religious discrimination in firing a Jehovah's Witness employee.  When the employee requested not to attend a December holiday party because it would violate her religious practices, she was fired by the health care company's owner who texted her: "[W]e can't tolerate religious privileges from anyone." JD Supra reports on the lawsuit.

"Church Autonomy" Requires Dismissal of Fired Faculty Member's Claims

In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, (ND IL, Sept. 25, 2019), an Illinois federal district court held that the "church autonomy" doctrine requires dismissal of claims by a former faculty member of a religious college that she was terminated because of her advocacy in favor of women serving as clergy members. The court said in part:

Garrick’s disagreement with Moody’s beliefs on the role of women in the ministry underlies the majority of Garrick’s allegations..... Under these circumstances, if the Court were to delve into the disputes posed by Garrick, it would impermissibly inject the auspices of government into religious doctrine and governance.

However the court said plaintiff could refile Title VII claims if they are untethered from her disagreements with Moody’s religious views.