Tag Archives | duty to accommodate

An unusual case where no religious accommodation was required

By on August 25, 2010 in Our Blog

Earlier this month, the Third Circuit upheld a prison’s refusal to accommodate three female employees who wanted to wear khimars, Islamic religious head scarfs.  In EEOC v. GEO Group Inc., the defendant employer was a private company that contracted to operate a prison facility in Pennsylvania.  In 2005, the prison adopted a strict dress code that prohibited any types of hats, scarfs, or other head coverings, unless part of the issued uniform.  The policy was strictly enforced, and the prison warden refused to permit three Muslim employees wear their khimars, despite their protests that they needed to do so for religious reasons.  Acting on behalf of the employees, the EEOC sued under Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination.   The court was persuaded by the defendant’s claimed safety concerns, namely that the khimars could be used to strangle a prison guard or to smuggle contraband into the prison.   

The duty to accommodate religious beliefs is a serious one, and often carries the day in religious discrimination lawsuits.  This case highlights the major exception employers can rely on: safety.

Comments { 0 }

Shift change to assist employee with commute can be part of employer’s duty to accommodate

By on May 13, 2010 in Our Blog

Last month, a federal appeals court sent a case that had been dismissed in the employer’s favor back to court for a jury trial.  In Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment on an ADA failure to accommodate claim.  Ms. Colwell, a cashier at the drug store, typically worked an evening shift.  Several months into her employment, she was diagnosed with a retinal condition that eventually left her blind in one eye.  Therefore, she requested her shift be changed to daytime hours, as she could no longer safely drive at night.  Her supervisor denied this request, claiming to do so would be unfair to other employees with more seniority.  Ms. Colwell eventually quit, stating in her resignation letter that she had been treated unfairly.  She received no response.  Thereafter, she sued for (among other things), a failure to accommodate under the ADA.

The district court granted Rite Aid summary judgment, holding that the duty to accommodate did not extend beyond the four corners of the workplace.  Since Ms. Colwell could perform her actual job duties without an accommodation, it reasoned, there was no failure to accommodate.  Not so, according to the Third Circuit.  The duty to reasonably accommodate can extend to an employee’s commute as well.  

Two things about this case strike me as important for employers.  First, be very, very careful when it comes to responding to requests for accommodation.  Make sure supervisors understand how to spot such requests, and to pass them up the chain-of-command so they may be adequately analyzed and reviewed.  Second, when an employee states in a resignation letter that she has been treated unfairly, don’t ignore it!  Get counsel involved early.  Doing so may avoid the cost and headache of a full-blown lawsuit later on.

Comments { 1 }

Deja vu? Abercrombie & Fitch accused of religious discrimination

By on March 2, 2010 in Our Blog

Retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch has had its share of discrimination-related smackdowns.  In 2004, the EEOC sued Abercrombie for race discrimination arising out of its hiring practices.  Abercrombie’s marketing and hiring strategy focused almost exclusively on good-looking white young men and women.  The EEOC obtained a $50 million settlement with the store, as well as the store’s commitment to “diversify” its marketing and hiring efforts and train its employees on the anti-discrimination laws.

Last September, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie based on its failure to hire a young woman who wore a hijab, a religious headscarf.  (We blogged about this case, the outcome of which is as of yet unknown).  

Last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organizations, filed an EEOC complaint against Abercrombie-owned Hollister, also a retail store.  According to the complaint, nineteen year old Umme-Hani Kahn, a stockroom worker, was fired for refusing to take off her hijab.  Kahn was told she could wear her hijab when she was hired last October, so long as it was white, gray, or blue, so as to conform with the store’s “looks” policy.  But when a new district manager came to the store last month, Kahn was told wearing the hijab in any color violated the “looks” policy.  When Kahn claimed she could not remove it due to her religious beliefs, she was fired, according to the complaint.

It surprises me that some employers continue to be completely confounded by the duty to accommodate religious beliefs.  It’s not all that complicated, so long as employers take the time to know the general rules, and to train on them.  Even basic anti-discrimination training can enable employers and their managers to at least spot potential legal issues.  The lesson here is, in short, if an employee cites a religious belief as the basis for a specific appearance, whether it be a hijab, a yarmulka, a tattoo, a hairstyle, or anything else, check with counsel and go through a very careful analysis before firing that employee.

Comments { 0 }

“W” is for Witchcraft (and, most likely, Winning Religious Discrimination Claim)

By on November 2, 2009 in Our Blog

A district sales manager in Hartford, CT is suing retail giant Bath and Body Works for religious discrimination in violation of Title VII.  Her claim is based on the allegation that her manager made derogatory comments about her religion, Wicca, and fired her shortly after she took time off for a religious observance.  

Wicca is a neopagan, nature-based religion that is often colloquially associated with witchcraft.  The New Year of the Wiccan religion is October 31st, Halloween.  According to the complaint, many Wiccans celebrate by traveling to Salem, Massachusetts, home of the witch trials of the late seventeenth century.

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Uberti, claims she scheduled time off for the occasion well in advance.  A new supervisor, however, allegedly badgered her about the need for time off and made comments such as “you will need a new career in your new year” and “I will be damned if I have a devil-worshipper on my team.”  True to her word, the supervisor fired Uberti a few days after her leave.

While this case is just beginning its long jaunt through the court system, it serves as a useful reminder of employers’ obligations under the anti-discrimination laws.  If this supervisor had received good, solid training on the duty to accommodate religious beliefs (no matter how silly she may find them), chances are Bath and Body Works would not be spending a lot of time and money dealing with this entirely preventable lawsuit.

witch

Comments { 0 }

Uncertain territory: an employer’s duty to accommodate religious beliefs

By on September 24, 2009 in Our Blog

By now everyone knows that employers have a duty under Title VII to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs.  Just how far this duty goes, though, is subject to debate.

On September 21, 2009, Jon Hyman blogged about this duty in the context of a recent lawsuit filed by the EEOC against the retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch.  According to the EEOC’s press release, Abercrombie & Fitch refused to hire a 17-year old Muslim because she wore a hijab to her interview, which was inconsistent with the store’s “Look Policy.”  Jon Hyman’s take on the case is that the EEOC will have a difficult time proving discrimination.  But I see it differently.

To me this case seems a lot like a recent EEOC case against Grand Central Partnership (GCP) in New York.  The EEOC accused GCP of discrimination against four employees who observed the Rastafarian religion.  The employees sought an exception to GCP’s grooming policy, which prohibited employees from wearing their hair outside their uniform hats.  The employees sought an accommodation for their long dreadlocks and short beards, which they claimed were part of their religious observance.  The case was settled on August 7, 2009, with GCP agreeing to permit the accommodation and also paying the employees for the alleged discrimination.

It is true that we do not know how a court would have ruled in the GCP matter, as it was settled.  But a few things are clear.  First, the EEOC is actively pursuing cases of what it considers an illegal failure to accommodate religious beliefs.  Second, employers should make decisions about the duty to accommodate carefully, and with the advice of counsel.  Finally, employers should make sure they take the time to train their managers on their responsibilities under Title VII.  

hijab

Comments { 1 }