Sikh Neurologist Brings Title VII Suit Against Practice Group

The Sikh Coalition this week announced the filing of a Title VII lawsuit on behalf of a neurologist who claims that he was not hired by a physician‐owned  multi‐specialty medical group in Clarksville‐Montgomery County, Tennessee because of his religion, race and national origin.  The complaint (full text) in Singh v. Premier Medical Group, P.C., (MD TN, filed 12/27/2016) alleges:

Only after requesting information regarding Plaintiff’s appearance, and receiving and reviewing photographs of Plaintiff and information about his Sikh religious beliefs did Defendants refuse to hire Plaintiff.

EEOC Suit On Flu Shot Exemptions Is Settled

The EEOC last week announced a settlement of a religious discrimination lawsuit it had filed against the Erie, Pennsylvania-based Saint Vincent Health Center.  At issue was a requirement by the health center that in order for employees to obtain religious exemptions from the requirement they obtain flu shots, they were required to present a certification from a member of the clergy.  Six employees who claimed religious exemptions were not able to present documentation from clergy. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement the health center will pay $300,000 in back pay and damages and offer the employees reinstatement.  A consent decree was also agreed upon under which, among other things, the employer is barred from rejecting a religious accommodation request merely because the employee's belief is not an endorsed teaching of any particular religion or denomination. National Law Review reports on the settlement.

Firing Clerk Who Refused To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Did Not Violate Title VII

In Summers v. Whitis, (SD IN, Dec. 15, 2016), an Indiana federal district court held that an Indiana County Clerk did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when she fired a deputy clerk who refused, on religious grounds, to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The court held:

Here, the court finds no objective conflict between Summers’ duties as a deputy clerk and her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. When it came to marriage licenses, Summers’ job merely required her to process the licenses by entering data and handing out information. Specifically, she had to pull up the application, verify that certain information was correct, collect a statutory fee, print a form, and record the license in a book for public record. At bottom, she was simply tasked with certifying–on  behalf of the state of Indiana, not on her own behalf– that the couple was qualified to marry under Indiana law. The duties were purely administrative.

To be clear, Summers did not perform marriage ceremonies or personally sign marriage licenses or certificates. She was not required to attend ceremonies, say congratulations, offer a blessing, or pray with couples. Her employer did not make her express religious approval or condone any particular marriage. Summers remained free to practice her Christian faith and attend church services. She was even free to maintain her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Thus, she was not forced to “choose between [her] religious convictions and [her] job.”...

... [T]he court does not question the sincerity of Summers’ beliefs. She maintains that “it’s not God’s law to have [same-sex couples] marry,” ... and has pointed to select verses from the Bible in support. That is fine; she has every right to believe that. However, that belief, no matter how sincerely espoused, does not objectively conflict with the purely administrative duty to process marriage licenses. Summers’ desire to avoid handling forms related to activities of which she personally disapproves is not protected by federal law. Title VII is not a license for employees to  perform only those duties that meet their private approval.

The court held, alternatively, that any religious conflict was with federal law, not with an employment requirement.

Title VII Can Cover Transgender Discrimination

In Mickens v. General Electric Co., (WD KY, Nov. 29, 2016), s Kentucky federal district court ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act supports a claim for employment discrimination brought by a transgender African American male employee.  The court said in part:

Significantly, Plaintiff alleges that GE both permitted continued discrimination and harassment against him and subsequently fired him because he did not conform to the gender stereotype of what someone who was born female should look and act like.

WFPL yesterday reported on the decision.

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Two Religion Cases

Yesterday the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (audio of oral arguments). In the case, a Maryland federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the 90-year old Peace Cross, a 40-foot tall Veteran's Memorial in the shape of a cross. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the oral arguments, the Washington Post said in part:

Two appeals court judges clearly stated that there is no way to view the Peace Cross in Bladensburg other than as a symbol of Christianity.

The third judge on the appeals panel just as strongly said that the marble-and-cement monument is a secular war memorial honoring the death and sacrifice of those lost in battle.

Yesterday the 4th Circuit also heard oral arguments in EEOC v. COMSO: Energy, Inc. (audio of oral arguments). In the case, a West Virginia federal district court awarded damages to an Evangelical Christian mine employee who who objected to biometric hand scanning to track time and attendance, believing that it involves the Mark of the Beast forbidden in the Book of Revelation. (See prior posting.)

Jehovah's Witness Sues After He Is Fired For Refusing To Wish Customers "Merry Christmas"

In a suit filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court, plaintiff who worked as a cashier at a Murphy Oil service station alleged that the actual reason that he was fired from his position was that his district manager objected to his refusal to wish customers a "Merry Christmas."  The complaint (full text) in Appleyard v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., (WD TN, filed 11/10/2016), says that plaintiff's Jehovah's Witness religion does not celebrate Christmas and prohibits its members from wishing others a Merry Christmas.  Plaintiff contends that his firing amounts to religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. BNA Daily Labor Report has more on the lawsuit.

EEOC Settles With Trucking Firm Over Complaints By Sikh Job Applicants

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has entered a conciliation agreement with J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. in connection with complaints by four East Indian Sikh job applicants based in California who say the company refused to provide an alternative to its hair sample drug testing policy.  Maintaining uncut hair is a Sikh article of faith. Under the agreement, which avoids litigation, the company will pay $260,000 in damages and will extend conditional offers of employment to the four complainants.  The company also agreed to designate an EEO consultant, develop complaint procedures, and conduct employee EEO training.

Court Holds Title VII Applies To Sexual Orientation Discrmination

In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Scott Medical Health Center, (WD PA, Nov. 4, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that Title VII's ban on discrimination because of sex prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The court said in part:

That someone can be subjected to a barrage of insults, humiliation, hostility and/or changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, based upon nothing more than the aggressor’s view of what it means to be a man or a woman, is exactly the evil Title VII was designed to eradicate. Because this Court concludes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a subset of sexual stereotyping and thus covered by Title VII’s prohibitions on discrimination “because of sex"....

An EEOC press release discusses the decision.

Workplace Program Is A "Religion" Under Title VII

In EEOC v. United Health Programs of America, (ED NY, Sept. 30, 2016), a New York federal district court in a 102-page opinion held that programs called "Onionhead" and Harnessing Happiness" that were introduced into the workplace are religious for purposes of Title VII, and not merely a conflict resolution tool. The court also refused to dismiss reverse religious discrimination and hostile work environment claims by various former employees, as well as conventional religious discrimination claim by one former employee. UPDATE: Newsday reports on the decision.

Court Refuses To Invoke Ministerial Exception Doctrine To Dismiss Discrimination Suit At Early Stage

In Yin v. Columbia International University, (D SC, Sept. 26, 2016), a South Carolina federal district court, agreeing with a magistrate's recommendation, rejected defendant's invocation of the ministerial exception doctrine as a basis for dismissing for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) a Title VII and the Equal Pay Act lawsuit.  Plaintiff, a female Asian-American Ph.D., was terminated from her faculty position at CIU, a multi-denominational Christian college. She claimed racial, gender and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation. The college claimed that plaintiff (who taught in the school's education program) was required to further the spiritual and pastoral mission of the University including teaching the gospel, spreading the Christian faith, and participating in worship.  However the court held since plaintiff's complaint does not reflect these duties, it is too early in the proceedings to dismiss on ministerial exception grounds.

Muslim Safety Officer Awarded $100,000 In Discrimination Suit

In Dingus v. Tennessee Department of Safety, (ED TN, Sept. 20, 2016), a Tennessee federal district court, on remand from the 6th Circuit, awarded damages of $100,000 to a former Tennessee safety officer for mental anguish and emotional distress he suffered as a result of religious discrimination.  De'Ossie Dingus, a Sunni Muslim, sued under Title VII claiming discrimination and harassment over the years. Knoxville News Sentinel reports on the decision.

Court Employee Sues Under Title VII When Fired For Refusing To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licences

A Title VII lawsuit was filed earlier this month in a Florida federal district court by an employee of the Broward County, Florida clerk's office who was fired because she refused to process marriage license applications for same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Parker v. Forman, (SD FL, filed 9/9/2016), contends that plaintiff Yanicka Parker, as a Christian, has a sincere religious belief "that persons of the same sex cannot and should not be morally or legally recognized as husband and wife, and that God will judge individual Christians, as well as the society of which they are a part, who condone or institute same sex marriages."  The complaint asserts:

There were many other clerks available, willing and able to perform same sex marriages.

... Given that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was a miniscule part of the clerk’s job and overall responsibilities, and Ms. Parker was willing and able to perform all other aspects of her job, Defendant ... could have easily accommodated her religious beliefs.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction and damages for defendants' refusal to accommodate her religious beliefs. Christian Post yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

Salesperson Is Independent Contractor, So Title VII Does Not Apply

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported yesterday that a Pennsylvania federal district court has dismissed a suit against a bathroom remodeling company brought by a woman who was fired from her sales position when she refused to continue to attend Bible-based sales training sessions.  A federal court jury Tuesday concluded that the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than employee, so the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII and state law do not apply.

Title VII's Religious Organization Exemption Protects Salvation Army

In Garcia v. Salvation Army, (D AZ, Sept. 12, 2016), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought against the Salvation Army by a former social services coordinator for the organization.  Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment after she stopped attending services at the Salvation Army’s Estrella Mountain Corps where she was employed.  The court held that Title VII's religious organization exemption applies to plaintiff's claim, and that the Salvation Army did not waive the defense by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense.

Company Settles With EEOC Over Firing of Seventh Day Adventist

The EEOC announced last week that North Carolina-based Greenville Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc., has agreed to a $42,500 settlement in the EEOC's suit (see prior posting) against it for firing a Seventh Day Adventist employee who refused a Saturday work assignment. The company has also agreed to a 5-year consent decree requiring it to create an anti-discrimination policy, engage in employee training, post notice about the lawsuit and submit periodic reports to the EEOC.

Muslim Police Officer Sues For Religious Accommodation

A Muslim police officer in the Town of West New York, NJ, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit this week in New Jersey federal district court alleging that he was not provided a religious accommodation to the police department's Appearance Policy.  The complaint (full text) in Awadallah v. Town of West New York, (D NJ, filed 9/7/2016), alleges that plaintiff wears a light beard as part of his Muslim religious beliefs. It contends that defendants initially denied the possibility of an accommodation and then delayed action on his request.  He was not permitted to work overtime while he was wearing his beard, and was required to submit proof of his religious beliefs. Ultimately his accommodation request was denied. Plaintiff alleges this violates Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

Firing of Employee For Anointing Office With Oil Is Upheld

In Cheeley v. City of Miami, (SD FL, Aug. 10, 2016), a Florida federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by an employee in Miami's Capital Improvements Program department.  Eric Cheeley was fired after he admitted that he had applied an oily liquid in the shape of crosses on walls, cubicles and doorways-- anointing various areas in order to bless the department. He contended that the city should have accommodated his sincerely held religious belief that he needed to anoint the office. The court concluded, however, that:

Cheeley has not presented sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable juror to find that the City could have accommodated Cheeley’s religious beliefs without undue hardship.

Yesterday's Christian Post reported on the decision.

EEOC Sues Over Firing of Muslim Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against KASCO, a St. Louis-based company that manufactures and sells butcher supplies and meat processing equipment. The press release explains:

According to EEOC's lawsuit, Latifa Sidiqi had worked for KASCO since 2008, most recently as a buyer. After she began more seriously practicing her religion in 2012, a supervisor and others began making derogatory comments about her fasting during Ramadan, wearing a hijab, and her native country, Afghanistan. The agency charged that Sidiqi was fired during Ramadan 2013 because of her religion and national origin, and because she complained about her supervisor's treatment.

Reinstatement Precludes Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Against Synagogue

In Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel of the City of New York, (SD NY, Aug. 15, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed (with leave to amend) a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by Alana Shultz, the long-time program director of a New York City Upper-West Side Orthodox Jewish congregation. Plaintiff claimed that the purported elimination of her job position when she returned from her honeymoon was a pretext for firing her because she had been pregnant at the time of her marriage.  When Shultz threatened to sue, the congregation reinstated her to her position. (See prior related posting.) The court held that Shultz's reinstatement eliminated any adverse job action-- a prerequisite to an employment discrimination claim-- saying:

 An employer may validly rescind a termination merely to avoid liability, even begrudgingly, so long as the employer restores the employee to her position with no material change or consequence. 

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

District Court Holds Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Matavka v. Board of Education of J. Sterling Morton High School District 201, (N.D. Ill. 2016, Aug. 1, 2016), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a Title VII complaint by a former school employee alleging severe anti-gay harassment from his coworkers and supervisors.  The court indicated that it was required to follow the recent 7th Circuit decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Comt. Coll that held Title VII does not cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (See prior posting.)  However the district judge expressed qualms about that conclusion similar to concerns expressed by two 7th Circuit judges in Hively.  Cook County Record reports on the decision.