The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the healthcare provider United Healthcare Services for refusing to grant a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate to an employee whose duties were performed entirely remotely. The EEOC said in part:
“Neither healthcare providers nor COVID-19 vaccination requirements are excepted from Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination.”
The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Arkansas-based Hank’s Furniture, Inc. for refusing to grant an employee a religious exemption from the company's Covid vaccine mandate. According to the EEOC:
When the Pensacola assistant store manager requested an accommodation exempting her from the requirement due to her Christian beliefs, her store manager and immediate supervisor informed her that the company would strip her of her management position if she refused to comply with the policy, no matter the reason. Despite her verbal and written requests for a religious accommodation, which Hank’s Furniture could have honored without undue hardship, the EEOC says, the company denied her requests and terminated her employment.
As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:
... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.
In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties. And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.
In a footnote, the court added:
This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.
LawDork reports on the decision.
In MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Aug, 28, 2023), an Oregon federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII claim by a former nurse in a hospital's Mother and Baby Unit who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The hospital argued that because plaintiff's job duties required her to interact with vulnerable pregnant mothers and newborn babies, any accommodation would pose an "undue hardship" on the hospital. The court pointed out that on a motion to dismiss, unlike on a motion for summary judgment, the court is generally not permitted to consider evidence outside of the pleadings, saying in part:
Accordingly, this Court finds that, at this stage, it is unable to properly consider the extrinsic evidence on which Defendants rely to show either that there were no other viable accommodations to Plaintiff’s vaccination, or that any accommodations would have created an undue hardship consistent with Groff....
... [O]n a fuller evidentiary record, Defendants may be able to satisfy their burden to show that any accommodation would indeed have resulted in a substantial cost to OHSU. But Defendants have not met that burden at this stage.
The court however dismissed plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, concluding that defendants had qualified immunity.
A lawsuit was filed last month in a California federal district court by Courtney Rogers, a former human resources employee of a multinational food service company, who was fired after she objected to taking part in the company's DEI program, captioned Operation Equity. Rogers sought a religious accommodation because Operation Equity violates her religious and moral beliefs. The program offers special training and mentorship to women and people of color. The complaint (full text) in Rogers v. COMPASS Group USA, Inc., (SD CA, filed 7/24/2023), alleged in part:
59. ROGERS has sincerely held religious beliefs, based on deeply and sincerely held religious, moral, and ethical convictions, that people should not be discriminated against because of their race.
60. ROGERS’s religious beliefs conflicted with the job’s requirements because she was required to work on implementing something COMPASS called “Operation Equity,” an employment program designed to exclude white males from opportunities for training, mentorship and promotion.
Rogers had proposed swapping 2 to 3 hours per week of her duties with another employee, but the company refused to discuss an accommodation. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and various provisions of California law. She seeks damages and reinstatement. SHRM reports on the lawsuit.
In Hamilton v. Dallas County, (5th Cir., Aug. 18, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of appeals in an en banc decision overturned the Circuit's previous precedent that held employment discrimination violates Title VII only if the discrimination involved an ultimate employment decision such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting or compensating. In this case, the Dallas County Sheriff's Department gave its detention service officers two days off each week. However, only men could choose to take two weekend days; women officers could only have one weekend day and one weekday, or two weekdays. The majority said in part:
Nowhere does Title VII say, explicitly or implicitly, that employment discrimination is lawful if limited to non-ultimate employment decisions. To be sure, the statute prohibits discrimination in ultimate employment decisions—“hir[ing],” “refus[ing] to hire,” “discharg[ing],” and “compensation”—but it also makes it unlawful for an employer “otherwise to discriminate against” an employee “with respect to [her] terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
Our ultimate-employment-decision test ignores this key language.
While the decision relates to a sex discrimination claim, the holding applies equally to religious discrimination.
Judge Ho filed a concurring opinion.
Judge Jones, joined by Judges Smith and Oldham concurred only in the judgment, saying in part:
The majority's incomplete ruling ... leaves the bench, bar, and employers and employees with no clue as to what this court will finally declare to be the minimum standard for Title VII liability....
... [A]s the majority recognizes, the Supreme Court emphasizes that Title VII does not effectuate a workplace “general civility code.”...Yet as written, the majority opinion has no baseline for “discrimination” based on terms or conditions of employment.
In Carter v. Transport Workers of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug.7, 2023), a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest claimed that the flight attendant had violated the company's social media policy regarding civility. In its current Order, The court set out a specifically worded communication that the Airline is required to send to its flight attendants regarding its obligation under Title VII not to engage in religious discrimination. The court also ordered that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court explained, in part:
When a litigant “does not appear to comprehend” a legal concept, training in “the relevant subject area” constitutes a “particularly apropos” sanction.
[Thanks to Joel Taubman for the lead.]
In Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, (9th Cir., Aug. 4, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act brought by the city's former Fire Chief. Among the several reasons given to plaintiff by the city for his dismissal was his attendance at a religious leadership event on city time and with use of a city vehicle, and his approval for three other Department employees to also attend. The city had also received anonymous complaints that plaintiff gave favored treatment to other employees who were part of his Christian coalition. The court said in part:
Hittle must demonstrate that his religion was “a motivating factor” in Defendants’ decision to fire him with respect to his federal claims, ..., and that his religion was “a substantial motivating factor” for his firing with respect to his FEHA claims....
[B]ecause neither Montes nor Deis made any remarks demonstrating their own hostility to religion, but focused on the Summit’s lack of benefit to the City and other evidence of Hittle’s misconduct, Hittle failed to demonstrate that hostility to religion was even a motivating factor in his termination....
... [B]ased on the record before us, the district court’s granting of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor was appropriate where Defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing Hittle were, in sum, sufficient to rebut Hittle’s evidence of discrimination, and Hittle has failed to persuasively argue that these non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual.
In a press release, First Liberty Institute said it would seek review of the 9th Circuit panel's decision.
As previously reported, earlier this year in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp., the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld a school's dismissal of a teacher who refused on religious grounds to comply with the school policy of calling transgender students by their names registered in the school's official database. Now, in an Order (full text) issued on July 28, the 7th Circuit has vacated its decision and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Groff v. DeJoy. ADF issued a press release announcing the court's new Order.
In Ellison v. Inova Health Care Services, three hospital employees sued because their claims for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate were rejected. They asserted that their employer violated Title VII by failing to accommodate their religious beliefs. The court found that only the aborted fetal cell objections of one defendant were adequately linked in the pleadings to plaintiff's religious beliefs. Other objections to the vaccine were not religious in nature. The court said in part:
In Ellison’s request for exception, he claims that, as a Christian, he has a right to refuse the vaccine. Specifically, he claims that the Bible requires Christians to treat their bodies as “temple[s] of the Holy Spirit,” meaning that he is “compel[led]” to care for his mind and body.... And because, in his view, taking the COVID-19 vaccine would “introduce to [his] body a medication that could induce harm,” he claims that complying with the hospital’s policy would be “antithetical to [his] desire to honor God.”...
... [T]he Court finds that, though couched in religious terms, Ellison refused the vaccines based on concerns of vaccine safety.
Two of the plaintiffs claimed that they pray over their health care decisions and follow God's answers. The court rejected this, calling it an unverifiable claim of a blanket privilege that undermines our system of ordered liberty.
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Muldrow v. St. Louis, MO, (Docket No. 22-193, certiorari granted 6/30/2023) (Order List), a Title VII employment discrimination case. The grant of certiorari was limited to the question of:
Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage?
At issue is a Title VII sex discrimination claim by a female police sergeant who was transferred from the St. Louis police department's Intelligence Division to work in the city's Fifth District and was subsequently denied a transfer to the Second District. The Court of Appeals in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, (8th Cir., April 4, 2022), held that absent a showing of harm resulting from a transfer, there has been no adverse employment action for purposes of Title VII. The Court's decision will impact religious discrimination in employment cases under Title VII as well as sex discrimination cases. Here is SCOTUSblog's case page with links to all the filings in the Supreme Court in the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court today in Groff v. DeJoy,(Sup. Ct., June 29, 2023), held that lower courts have largely been misreading the Hardison case's standard for determining when accommodation of religious practices of employees imposes an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." The case involves a postal worker who was seeking accommodation of his Sabbath observance. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Alito, the Court said in part:
Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position that Hardison should be overruled—but only on the understanding that Hardison does not compel courts to read the “more than de minimis” standard “literally” or in a manner that undermines Hardison’s references to “substantial” cost....With the benefit of comprehensive briefing and oral argument, we agree.
We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business....
[B]oth parties agree that the language of Title VII requires an assessment of a possible accommodation’s effect on “the conduct of the employer’s business.”... As the Solicitor General put it, not all “impacts on coworkers . . . are relevant,” but only “coworker impacts” that go on to “affec[t] the conduct of the business.”...
An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.” If bias or hostility to a religious practice or a religious accommodation provided a defense to a reasonable accommodation claim, Title VII would be at war with itself....
Second, ... Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s practice of religion, not merely that it assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation or accommodations.... Faced with an accommodation request like Groff’s, it would not be enough for an employer to conclude that forcing other employees to work overtime would constitute an undue hardship. Consideration of other options, such as voluntary shift swapping, would also be necessary.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:
Petitioner Gerald Groff asks this Court to overrule Hardison.... The Court does not do so. That is a wise choice because stare decisis has “enhanced force” in statutory cases.De
Last week, federal district courts in three states handed down decisions in cases in which a former employee was suing his or her employer for refusing to provide them with a religious exemption from the employer's Covid vaccine mandate.
In Crocker v. Austin, (WD LA, June 22, 2023) a Louisiana federal district court dismissed as moot a suit for injunctive relief brought by seven military service members who faced involuntary separation from the Air Force when they filed suit. However, in January 2023 the military rescinded the vaccine mandate and updated personnel records to remove any adverse actions associated with the denial of requested exemptions. Any remaining suit for damages falls under the Tucker Act and must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims.
In Leek v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, (ED PA, June 23, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII religious discrimination claim filed by a nurse who was denied religious exemptions from a hospital's requirement to receive Covid and influenza vaccines. The hospital claimed that the nurse's objections were not religious in nature. The court held that the nurse's belief that chemical injections may make her body impure in the eyes of the Lord, and her objections to some vaccines because they were developed using aborted fetal cells, are both religious objections. The fact that some of her other objections were more medical or political did not negate the presence of religious objections.
In Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, June 23, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by an Internet technology professional at a health care facility that denial of his request for a religious exemption from the state's Covid vaccine mandate violated Title VII and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court disagreed, holding that requiring the employer to violate a state rule would place an undue burden on the employer. The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the vaccine mandate was a neutral law of general applicability.
In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC, (5th Cir., June 20, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that RFRA requires an exemption from the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII for a company that operates three related health and wellness businesses on the basis of Christian beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. The court said in part:
RFRA requires that Braidwood ... be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC wholly fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock....
Although the Supreme Court may some day determine that preventing commercial businesses from discriminating on factors specific to sexual orientation or gender identity is such a compelling government interest that it overrides religious liberty in all cases, it has never so far held that....
Under RFRA, the government cannot rely on generalized interests but, instead, must demonstrate a compelling interest in applying its challenged rule to “the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”...
[T]he EEOC fails to carry its burden. It does not show a compelling interest in denying Braidwood, individually, an exemption. The agency does not even attempt to argue the point outside of gesturing to a generalized interest in prohibiting all forms of sex discrimination in every potential case. Moreover, even if we accepted the EEOC’s formulation of its compelling interest, refusing to exempt Braidwood, and forcing it to hire and endorse the views of employees with opposing religious and moral views is not the least restrictive means of promoting that interest.
Reuters reports on the decision.
In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., (WD WA, June 12, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, finding it is barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine. A Christian ministry's job offer to plaintiff for the full-time position of Donor/Customer Service Representative Trainee was rescinded when defendant learned that plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage. The court discussed the relationship between the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the Ministerial Exception, concluding that the Church Autonomy Doctrine may be invoked when a non-ministerial employee brings a Title VII action. The court said in part:
... [T]he Church Autonomy Doctrine requires the court to abstain from resolving employment discrimination claims where a religious institution takes an adverse action pursuant to a religious belief or policy—regardless of whether the employer allegedly discriminated on religious or other protected grounds—unless it is possible for the court resolve the claims without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine or calling into question the reasonableness, validity, or truth of a religious doctrine or practice....
The court joins other courts ... in cautioning religious employers against over-reading the impact of the court’s holding. It is by no means the case that all claims of discrimination against religious employers are barred.... [I]f a religious employer does not offer a religious justification for an adverse employment action against a non-ministerial employee or if the plaintiff presents sufficient secular evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that the religious justification was pretext without wading into the plausibility of the asserted religious doctrine, it is unlikely that serious constitutional questions will be raised by applying Title VII.
In Rolovich v. Washington State University, (ED WA, May 30, 2023), a Washington federal district court refused to dismiss failure to accommodate and breach of contract claims by the head football coach of Washington State University who was terminated after he refused to comply with the state's Covid vaccine mandate. Discussing plaintiff's Title VII failure to accommodate claim, the court said in part:
Plaintiff’s claim that his Catholic faith informed his decision not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine is sufficient at the pleading stage to meet the prima facie element that he has a bona fide religious belief.... Plaintiff has adequately pleaded the first element of the prima facie case for a failure to accommodate claim. Defendant does not challenge the remaining elements of Plaintiff’s prima facie case....
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s accommodation request would have resulted in increased travel costs, harm to recruitment and fundraising efforts, and damage to WSU’s reputation and donor commitments, in addition to an increased risk of exposure to COVID-19 to student athletes and other coaching staff....
While these claims of undue hardship may be supported by evidence not presently before the Court, they are insufficient on their own to support a finding that Plaintiff’s accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship....
The court concluded that the WSU Athletic Director was entitled to qualified immunity as to the coach's free exercise and due process claims. USA Today reports on the decision.
The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Triple Canopy, Inc., a Reston, Virginia-based company that provides protective services to federal agencies. The EEOC, alleging failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, said in part:
[D]espite the employee’s repeated explanations that he did not belong to a formal religious denomination but nonetheless held a Christian belief that men must wear beards, Triple Canopy denied his request for a religious accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a certified or documented religious leader. Additionally, Triple Canopy subjected him to intolerable work conditions that resulted in his discharge.
In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir., May 15, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision from a California federal district court that denied preliminary relief to two city and county employees who were denied religious exemptions from CCSF's COVID vaccine mandate. The appeals court said in part:
The district court erroneously concluded that “[n]either Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine...."...
Beyond the district court’s factual error, its decision reflects a misunderstanding of Title VII law. A religious belief need not be consistent or rational to be protected under Title VII, and an assertion of a sincere religious belief is generally accepted....
The district court did not explain its conclusion that Appellants had not established sincerity beyond stating that there are “no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines . . . are . . . derived from murdered babies” and generally stating that personal preferences are not sincere religious beliefs. And CCSF offered no argument or evidence that Appellants’ beliefs are insincere. Absent any indication otherwise, it seems that the district court erroneously held that Appellants had not asserted sincere religious beliefs because their beliefs were not scientifically accurate. Remand is warranted for the district court to reevaluate Appellants’ claims applying the proper failure-to-accommodate inquiry....
Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.
The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit in a North Carolina federal district court against a Charlotte, North Carolina IHOP restaurant operated by Suncakes, LLC. The EEOC charged that the restaurant failed to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious exercise:
... Suncakes hired a cook ... in January 2021. At the time of hire, the employee requested and was granted a religious accommodation of not working on Sundays to honor his religious observances. After a change in management in April 2021, the new general manager expressed hostility toward the accommodation and required the employee to work on Sunday, April 25 and Sunday, May 9. After the May 9 shift, the employee told the general manager he would not be working the following Sunday. The general manager refused to allow the employee to work his next scheduled shift and fired him. The manager then made comments to other employees such as, “religion should not take precedence over [the employee’s] job”” and that the employee “thinks it is more important to go to church than to pay his bills.”
The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against Mercy Health St. Mary’s, a Grand Rapids, Michigan hospital for refusing to provide a religious accommodation to a job applicant and declining to hire him because of his religious beliefs. The release said in part:
... Mercy Health St. Mary’s violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by rescinding a job offer to an applicant who, for religious reasons, refused to receive a flu vaccine. Under Mercy Health’s influenza policy, employees are required to get a flu shot on an annual basis unless granted an exemption. While the applicant’s conditional job offer was pending, he applied for an exemption to the flu shot requirement based on his religious beliefs. Mercy Health arbitrarily denied his request and rescinded the job offer, without specifying to the applicant why or how his request for an exemption was deficient, the EEOC said.