Thanks to a growing accumulation of immigrants from around the world, claims of religious discrimination against U.S. employers have increased in recent years. Such claims soared after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At that time, Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent (or even the appearance of it) experienced American outrage. But today, other religious groups are taking their complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

1. Toll Free: 877.880.4477
Phone: 281.880.6525
www.hrp.net
The Legal Boundaries on Religious
Discrimination

2. Thanks to a growing accumulation of immigrants from around the world,
claims of religious discrimination against U.S. employers have increased in
recent years. Such claims soared after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. At that time, Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent (or even
the appearance of it) experienced American outrage. But today, other
religious groups are taking their complaints to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
What kinds of work-related restrictions can an employer impose on religious
employees -- without risking litigation from the EEOC?
www.hrp.net
»
The EEOC itself does not get terribly specific in defining illegal religious
discrimination. Decisions must be made "by considering the particular factual
context of each case," the Commission states.
»
One principle, however, which has guided the EEOC's thinking in such cases is
that you cannot justify a discriminatory policy (for example, barring Muslim
women from wearing head scarves) out of a fear of how customers might
react to a religious display.
»

3. The Number of Religious Discrimination Claims Filed with the EEOC
1997: 1,709
2002: 2,572
2007: 2,880
2012: 3,811
www.hrp.net
Recent Settlements
Auto Dealer Settles Lawsuit. United Galaxy Inc., a New Jersey car dealership doing
business as Tri-County Lexus, will pay $50,000 and provide other relief to settle a
religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC, the agency announced on
November 19.

4. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Tri-County Lexus strictly enforced its dress code
policy without granting reasonable religious accommodations, and refused to
hire a member of the Sikh faith, because of its policy. The applicant's religious
beliefs require him to wear a beard, uncut hair and a turban. He applied for an
available position as a sales associate, for which he was qualified, the EEOC
stated. The dealership requested that the applicant shave his beard, and he
refused because of his religious beliefs. As a result, Tri-County Lexus denied him
the job, the agency charged.
www.hrp.net
»
Shipping Company Settles Lawsuit. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), the large
package delivery company, agreed to pay $70,000 and furnish injunctive relief to
settle a religious accommodation lawsuit filed by the EEOC, the agency
announced on November 4.
»
According to the EEOC, the claimant was a Jehovah's Witness. UPS hired him as a
part-time loader at its Saddle Brook, N.J. facility in April 2011. Shortly after his
new-employee orientation, the claimant requested a schedule change in order
to attend an annual religious service. His supervisor denied the request for a
schedule accommodation and the claimant was terminated from his job a few
days later.
»

5. The EEOC contended that the refusal to grant the request for a schedule
accommodation and the decision to terminate the claimant constituted religious
discrimination. The lawsuit further alleged that after the claimant was
terminated from his job, he was placed on a company-wide "do not rehire" list
and was unable to get another job with UPS after re-applying elsewhere.
www.hrp.net
»
Lawsuit Settled by California Dealership.Elk Grove car dealership Maita
Chevrolet agreed to pay $158,000 and to implement preventive measures to
settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC, the agency announced on
September 27.
»
According to the EEOC, Maita failed to accommodate the religious practice of an
employee. The employee, a Nigerian immigrant and a Seventh-day Adventist,
worked as a car salesman for approximately two years until he was discharged. A
key tenet of his faith is to observe the Sabbath by refraining from secular work
from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. The EEOC charged that the company
persistently scheduled him to work shifts during his Sabbath despite numerous
requests from the employee and his pastor explaining the requirements. In
addition, the EEOC alleged the employee was harassed, and ultimately
disciplined and discharged for taking leave to observe his Sabbath.
»

6. Burden of Proof
As with other categories of potential discrimination, religious discrimination
revolves around an employer's ability to make a "reasonable
accommodation" without causing "undue hardship" to a business or
organization. And you have the burden of proof that you would suffer an
www.hrp.net
»
undue hardship in the absence of a potentially discriminatory policy.
Undue hardship claims generally involve reducing safety and/ or efficiency,
creating a significant burden on other employees or incurring a lot of
expense.

7. A few recent cases offer some insights into where the EEOC is drawing the
line today. In a case filed earlier this year, the EEOC faulted a trucking
company, Star Transport Inc., after it fired a pair of Muslim drivers who
refused to deliver shipments of alcoholic drinks on religious grounds
(devout Muslims generally shun alcohol). The issue was whether the
company should have simply assigned non-Muslim drivers to handle those
deliveries.
An EEOC attorney on the case stated: "Everyone has a right to observe his or
her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which
religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an
employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice
without an undue hardship, then it must do so."
www.hrp.net
»

8. What Hardship?
The EEOC has taken the position that switching some schedules around, even
if it involved job-sharing and paying some overtime, did not constitute a
hardship. At this writing, the lawsuit is pending. Even if the EEOC ultimately
loses, avoiding seemingly rigid responses to similar situations might be
advisable.
www.hrp.net
»
A pair of cases involving retailer Abercrombie & Fitch reinforced the EEOC's
position on restrictions against religious-based clothing. Two women, in
separate cases, were told that wearing an hijab (head scarf) violated the
company's dress policy. (One case was on behalf of an employee, the other,
involves a woman who applied but was not hired based on the clothing
issue.)

9. In a separate case involving the same company, the EEOC was shot down
by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver. Siding with Abercrombie & Fitch, the
Court considered the fact that the job applicant did not mention in her job
interview that she needed to wear the hijab for religious reasons. She also
did not request any accommodations that would allow her to wear her hijab
if doing so would violate any policy.
www.hrp.net
»
Walmart, with its vast workforce, often addresses litigation involving
employees. One now-retired assistant store manager filed a complaint with
the EEOC when his schedule changed. After many years of being able to take
Sundays off to attend his Mormon church, a new scheduling procedure made
this very difficult. When he pressed the case, Walmart disciplined and
threatened to fire him. The employer settled for $70,000 and agreed to train
its human resources staff to be more accommodating in such situations.
"Employers who simply deny requests for a religious accommodation are
violating the law," an EEOC attorney stated. "An employer with the kind of
resources that Walmart has can surely find the flexibility and creativity to
allow a valuable employee continue to keep his Sabbath."

10. The Size Factor
The EEOC probably would, however, be more sympathetic to a very small
company with less flexibility in permitting shift changes. It has stated
companies with multiple locations within close proximity have more freedom
-- and a greater obligation -- to allow employees to move to jobs in other
locations if necessary to accommodate religious-based scheduling
constraints. By implication, single-location small companies could not be held
to the same standard.
The classic anti-discrimination mantra states that, in general, we should treat
all employees equally. But according to the head of one religious
organization, the current legal environment has taught us when it comes to
religion, this policy may no longer apply (from an interview with the CEO of
the New York-based Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding,
published in the Wall Street Journal).
www.hrp.net
»

11. Action Items
How do you use this information in your workplace? To help reduce your
chances of being accused of illegally discriminating on the basis of their religion:
www.hrp.net
»
• Avoid asking questions about employees' or applicants' religious practices.
This will help limit the probability of future accusations that you were unduly
focused on a personal matter unrelated to their job qualifications.
• Consider whether any of your current human resource policies might unduly
hinder employees from practicing their religions, even if you have received
no complaints so far.
• Do not make policy decisions regarding employee dress and personal
appearance standards based on untested assumptions of how others may
react to an employee who dresses in a particular way.
• If a complaint arises, take it very seriously, no matter how frivolous it may
appear to you. Seek expert legal and HR advice.
With the recent spike in claims of religious discrimination, it may be more
important than ever for employers to be aware of issues that arise concerning
religious practice. The world is changing fast and being nimble enough to roll with
the punches is necessary if you hope to steer clear of this type of legal pitfall.

12. 14550 Torrey Chase Blvd., Ste. 360 Houston, TX 77014 USA
www.hrp.net
E-mail : info@hrp.net
Toll Free
Phone
Fax
:
:
:
877.880.4477
281.880.6525
281.866.9426