Workplace Religious Discrimination

October 5, 2018 by

workplace religious disriminationWorkplace religious discrimination does not pay in California. Is America a Great Melting Pot or a Cultural Stew? Regardless of how you view the enormous collection of cultures, ideas, and religions in this country, the legal protections for differences are alive and well. When it comes to religious differences, federal and California law join to protect all Americans, regardless of faith. If your employer fails to recognize your religious rights under the law, a conversation with a local employment attorney could prove useful.

Legal Requirements and Workplace Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs of employees. This law, in conjunction with California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provide significant religious protections for employees.

FEHA’s requirements ask employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious reasons, provided the accommodation does not lead to the segregation of employees based on religious affiliation. Such accommodations would be expected to include:

  • Changes in work schedules in order to accommodate religious holidays or observances;
  • Adjusting dress and grooming standards;
  • Allowing for private prayer time during the workday as prescribed by the religion.

Proving an Accommodation Causes Undue Hardship for the Company

It is not necessary to make adjustments to company policies and procedures if those adjustments would result in undue hardships. Those hardships will be evaluated considering several factors, including:

  • Nature of the accommodation;
  • Costs required;
  • Resources of the company;
  • Size of the facility;
  • Geographic factors.

Workplace Religious Discrimination 2018 Lawsuit

One California business discovered just how serious it is for companies to decline to make the religious accommodations required by law. While making the adjustments would have been a minor adjustment for a single employer, their decision to resist working with that employee wound up costing them more than they bargained for.

Learning a Lesson on Workplace Religious Discrimination

Universal Protection Services is a private security company that provides services for a number of California businesses. When a security guard requested modifications to the compulsory grooming standards set forth by the company based on his Muslim religious convictions, the company refused to make an exception. Just days following his entreaty, the employee was fired, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The employee filed a complaint with the EEOC, and the legal wheels started turning. Universal refused to agree to any settlement in the case, and after enduring litigation, was required to make a number of concessions, in addition to having to fork over 90K.

  • They were required to work with an EEOC monitor, whose task it was to appraise and modify company policies with regard to religious accommodations, to ensure company guidelines were in accordance with Title VII laws;
  • They were obliged to provide annual employee and manager trainings regarding EEOC requirements;
  • They were told to post a notice informing employees of religious rights under EEOC rules;
  • They were expected to record instances of religious discrimination complaints and issues and report those situations to the EEOC.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Religious Discrimination Tagged With: ,

Religious Accommodations in the Workplace

October 21, 2016 by

Religious AccomodationsDo your religious beliefs impact your job requirements? Under a 1972 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, religious accommodations in the workplace are obligatory as long as those accommodations do not cause the employer undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. What does that mean for you? The experienced team at Beck Law P.C., can help you sort through the specifics of your circumstances and help you with a legal remedy to your situation.

What Does the Law Say About Religious Accommodations?

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals designated three features that determine whether a belief is religious and eligible for Title VII accommodations. Those features comprise:

  • The belief compelling the accommodation must truly be religious;
  • It must be a sincerely held religious belief:
  • Accommodation must not impose an undue hardship on the conduct of business.

Specific circumstances addressed by various courts include a range of issues, but it is clear that the law protects both the traditions of organized religion and the practice of dearly held religious or moral beliefs of unaffiliated individuals. Indeed, “any belief related to the afterlife, spirituality, or the soul…qualifies as religion under Title VII.”

Requests for Leave and/or Scheduling for Religious Accommodations

Employers are directed through Title VII to make reasonable accommodations for an employee who requests time off for religious holy days or to participate in ceremonies or other activities with religious significance. Additionally, daily schedules may be adapted to allow for prayer or other religious requirements.

Dress and Grooming

Employees must express to their employers any religious restrictions on dress and grooming, and employers must make reasonable accommodations. Recent cases involving the wearing of a headscarf/hijab support the employee’s right to dress in accordance with religious tenets.

Job Duties

The array of duties that may conflict with a given religious stance is quite broad, and individual circumstances differ widely, making it difficult to determine hard and fast rules regarding religious accommodations in the workplace. That being said, recent trends indicate that it is the employee’s responsibility to notify the employer of religious conflicts and desired accommodations. As long as those accommodations do not infringe on the rights of other employees or create undue hardship for the employer, the courts tend to support the need for accommodation. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, Religious Discrimination Tagged With: , ,

Religious Discrimination Cases Precedent Set by Supreme Court

June 9, 2015 by

Abercrombie & FitchImportant religious discrimination cases precedent set by the Supreme Court. Employers across the country should take notice of a Supreme Court decision handed down on June 1. The ruling, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., sets an important precedent regarding religious discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Ruling

The case involves a Muslim woman who was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store. She was deemed to be qualified, but was rejected because she wears a headscarf. The Abercrombie & Fitch management felt the headscarf would be in violation of the store’s “Looks Policy,” which dictates what employees may and may not wear. After she was rejected, the applicant filed a claim against the store, alleging that they failed to accommodate her religious practice.

The applicant won at trial in District Court, but the District Court’s decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Court of Appeals ruled that because the woman did not inform the management of the store that she wears the headscarf for religious reasons – and thus management did not have “actual knowledge” of her need for religious accommodation – then management could not be liable for failing to accommodate her religious practices.

The Supreme Court disagreed. In a 7-2 opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court overturned the Tenth Circuit’s decision. The opinion points out that Title VII focuses on an employer’s motives in religious discrimination cases, rather than the employer’s knowledge. Thus, if an employer suspects that an employee will need religious accommodation, and discriminates against the employee for that reason, then the employer’s actions can be in violation of Title VII – even though the employer did not have “actual knowledge” that the employee required accommodation.

What This Ruling Means for Employers

Since the ruling was handed down, there has been a lot of commentary regarding whether an employer like Abercrombie & Fitch should be required to accommodate an employee’s desire to wear a headscarf. However, the Supreme Court’s decision did not have any effect on what kind of religious practices are protected under Title VII – or what types of employers are bound by Title VII.

The issue that the Court ruled on was whether a plaintiff claiming religious discrimination can prevail in a disparate treatment claim if the employer was never notified of the plaintiff’s need for accommodation. (A disparate treatment claim involves an allegation that someone was the victim of discrimination based on their membership in a protected class – such as their religion.)

In light of this ruling, if an employee claims that an employer discriminated against him or her out of a desire to avoid accommodating the employee’s religious practices, the employee will not have to prove that the employer knew for a fact that he or she needed accommodations. If you are an employer, and you are unsure whether you are meeting the legal requirements for providing religious accommodations for your employees, the Santa Rosa employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. can help. You can call or email our office today, and schedule a consultation.

Photo Credit: The Caze via Compfight cc

Filed Under: Religious Discrimination Tagged With: , ,

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.