EEOC Announces Plans to Improve Data Collection & Outreach on Religious Discrimination

New Fact Sheet Addresses Rights, Responsibilities for Youth

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the release of a one-page fact sheet designed to help young workers better understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal employment anti-discrimination laws prohibiting religious discrimination. The fact sheet is available at EEOC’s Youth@Work website, which presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination.

Combating Religious Discrimination Today, a community engagement initiative coordinated by the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, brought together EEOC and other federal agencies to promote religious freedom, challenge religious discrimination, and enhance efforts to combat religion-based hate violence and crimes.

Additionally, in an effort to improve the information available about religious discrimination, EEOC announced it will implement changes in the collection of demographic data from individuals who file charges with the agency. These changes will allow EEOC to collect more precise data about the religion of the individual alleging discrimination – allowing the agency, as well as the public, to recognize and respond to trends in charge data.

Finally, EEOC plans to improve coordination with the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which enforces the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment by federal contractors and subcontractors. EEOC and OFCCP will work together to develop joint outreach and education efforts concerning discrimination based on religion.

EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.


Learn More

U.S. Steel Subsidiary Sued for Religious Discrimination and Retaliation

Manufacturing Company Revoked Job Offer and Refused to Accommodate Applicant Whose Religious Beliefs Prohibited Hair from Being Cut From His Scalp, Agency Says

U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc., a subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, unlawfully revoked a worker's job offer because of his religion and in retaliation for insisting that his religious practices be accommodated, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed.

According to the EEOC's suit, in December 2011, U.S. Steel interviewed Stephen Fasuyi and made an oral employment offer for a utility technician position at a facility in Houston. The offer was contingent upon Fasuyi's successful completion of a pre-employment drug test. Fasuyi belongs to the Nazirite sect of the Hebrew Israelite faith, and he sincerely believes that the Old Testament forbids him from cutting hair from his scalp. During a hair follicle drug test at a clinic the same day he received a job offer, he declined to have a lock of his hair cut starting at the scalp. A nurse had advised him that the hair for testing could come from his head or beard, and Fasuyi offered to -- and did -- pull hair from his beard, and offered to cut a lock of his hair starting in the middle. Fasuyi was nevertheless instructed to go home without the examination being completed.

The following day, Fasuyi sent an e-mail to an employee services supervisor at U.S. Steel, in which Fasuyi reiterated his willingness to undergo the hair follicle test, as long as it could be completed without cutting hair from his scalp. Although U.S. Steel has conceded that hair "samples may be taken from the subject's beard, underarm or chest if sufficient quantity and length of the hair is available," its employee services supervisor denied Fasuyi the opportunity to re-test. Claiming that Fasuyi "has more hair than Solomon," the supervisor accused Fasuyi of having "created a negative scene" at the clinic, and he sent an e-mail to other U.S. Steel hiring officials stating, "[a]s discussed, Stephen Fayusi is not been [sic] considered for employment with the company." Fasuyi subsequently applied for other vacancies at U.S. Steel, including another utility technician position for which he initially was scheduled for an interview, only to have the interview later canceled by the company.

The EEOC contends that Fasuyi's religious beliefs could and should have been accommodated during the pre-employment testing, and that U.S. Steel ultimately denied him employment because of his religion and in retaliation for his opposing what he believed to be religious discrimination.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination because of religion and prohibits retaliation. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Civil Action No. 4:14cv-2747) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
  
The federal agency is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting U.S Steel from engaging in any future religious discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC is also seeking back pay on behalf of Fasuyi and compensatory and punitive damages and other relief on his behalf, including rightful-place instatement to a suitable position at U.S. Steel.

"When a worker's sincerely held religious beliefs can be accommodated without imposing an undue burden on an employer -- as in this case -- the employer cannot discriminate because of the worker's religious beliefs and practices," said EEOC Houston District Director R.J. Ruff, Jr.

EEOC Houston Regional Attorney Jim Sacher said, "This lawsuit will send a message to employers that the EEOC will vigorously enforce federal law by prosecuting companies which deny equal opportunity to religiously observant workers who seek to adhere to the tenets of their faith."

U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Steel Corporation. According to their webpage, U.S. Steel's Tubular Processing Houston Operations "[o]ffer[] a variety of tubular processing services to our customers."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Shadescrest Healthcare for Religious Discrimination and Retaliation

Nursing Home Prohibited Religious Headwear and Fired Worker in Retaliation Federal Agency Charges

A Jasper, Ala., nursing home violated federal law when it refused to allow a Muslim employee to wear a hijab (the traditional covering for the hair and neck that is worn by Muslim women) on the job, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a workplace discrimination lawsuit filed June 30. EEOC v. Shadescrest Health Care Center, ND Ala. Case 6:14-cv-01253-SLB (June 30, 2014). The agency also contends that Shadescrest fired the employee in retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, in August 2012, Tracy Martin, a Muslim woman, was hired as a certified nursing assistant by Shadescrest Healthcare Center. On or about Aug. 9, 2012, Martin reported to work wearing a hijab, in accord with her sincerely held religious beliefs. According to the EEOC, Shadescrest refused Martin's request to wear the hijab, despite its religious significance, and instead, told her to remove the head covering or be subject to termination. Subsequently, Martin filed a charge with the EEOC complaining that Shadescrest refused to accommodate her religious beliefs. Weeks after Shadescrest received notice of Martin's charge of discrimination, Martin was summarily fired. According to the EEOC, Martin was fired in retaliation for her complaint to the EEOC and on account of her attempt to exercise her rights under Title VII's religious accommodation provision.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs or practices of employees, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business. Title VII also prohibits employers from discharging employees for filing a charge with the EEOC. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages and injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.

"Businesses, like Shadescrest, must respect the religious practices of their employees and, when practical, accommodate those practices," said EEOC Birmingham District Director Delner Franklin-Thomas. "The EEOC will continue to target policies and practices that discourage or prohibit people from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts.

EEOC Birmingham Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith added, "Failure to accommodate religious dress and grooming remains a wide-spread problem.The EEOC recently issued a Question and Answer document and a fact sheet to guide employers and employees on this issue. This agency will remain vigilant to ensure that Americans of all faiths are free from discrimination in the workplace."

Shadescrest Healthcare Center is a skilled nursing care and rehabilitation facility.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

United Health Programs of America and Parent Company Sued for Religious Discrimination

Company Coerced Participation in Religious Activities and Fired Employees Who Opposed Them, Federal Agency Charges

 

A Syosset, N.Y.-based health network violated federal law when it forced employees to take part in religious activities in the workplace and fired employees who opposed such activities, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today. Such alleged practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on religion.

According to the EEOC's suit, United Health Programs of America, Inc., and its parent company, Cost Containment Group, Inc., which provide customer service on behalf of various insurance providers, coerced employees to participate in ongoing religious activities since 2007. These activities included group prayers, candle burning, and discussions of spiritual texts. The religious practices are part of a belief system that the defendants' family member created, called "Onionhead." Employees were told wear Onionhead buttons, pull Onionhead cards to place near their work stations and keep only dim lighting in the workplace. None of these practices was work-related. When employees opposed taking part in these religious activities or did not participate fully, they were terminated.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Civil Action No. 14-cv-3673) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"While religious or spiritual practices may indeed provide comfort and community to many people, it is critical to be aware that federal law prohibits employers from coercing employees to take part in them," said EEOC senior trial attorney Sunu P. Chandy.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Issues New Publications on Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission today issued two new technical assistance publications addressing workplace rights and responsibilities with respect to religious dress and grooming under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The question-and-answer guide, entitled "Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities," and an accompanying fact sheet, provide a user-friendly discussion of the applicable law, practical advice for employers and employees, and numerous case examples based on the EEOC's litigation.

Employers covered by Title VII must make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to follow religiously-mandated dress and grooming practices unless it would pose an undue hardship to the operation of an employer's business. When an exception is made as a religious accommodation, the employer may still refuse to allow exceptions sought by other employees for secular reasons.

Topics covered in the publications include:

• prohibitions on job segregation, such as assigning an employee to a non-customer service position because of his or her religious garb;
• accommodating religious grooming or garb practices while ensuring employer workplace needs;
• avoiding workplace harassment based on religion, which may occur when an employee is required or coerced to forgo religious dress or grooming practices as a condition of employment; and
• ensuring there is no retaliation against employees who request religious accommodation.

Religious discrimination charges relating to a wide range of issues have steadily increased. In fiscal year 2013, the Commission received 3,721 charges alleging religious discrimination, more than double the 1,709 charges received in fiscal year 1997.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Dynamic Medical Services To Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Company Required Employees to Participate in Scientology Religious Practices, Fired Two for Refusing, Federal Agency Charged

Dynamic Medical Services, Inc., a Miami company owned by Dr. Dennis Nobbe which provides medical and chiropractic services, has agreed to settle a religious discrimin­ation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC charged in its suit that Dynamic Medical Services, Inc. ("DMS") required Norma Rodriguez, Maykel Ruz, Rommy Sanchez, Yanileydis Capote and other employees to spend at least half their work days in courses that involved Scientology religious practices, such as screaming at ashtrays or staring at someone for eight hours without moving. The company also instructed employees to attend courses at the Church of Scientology. Additionally, the company required Sanchez to undergo an "audit" by connect­ing herself to an "E-meter," which Scientologists believe is a religious artifact, and required her to undergo "purification" treatment at the Church of Scientology.

According to the EEOC's suit, employees repeatedly asked not to attend the courses but were told it was a requirement of the job. In the cases of Rodriguez and Sanchez, when they refused to participate in Scientology religious practices and/or did not conform to Scientology religious beliefs, they were terminated.
Such alleged practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion-which includes forcing employees to conform to a particular religion. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 1:13-cv-21666KMW, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) after first attempting to reach a settlement through its conciliation process.

According to the terms of the consent decree, which was approved by the U.S. District Court on December 23, 2013, DMS will pay $170,000 to settle the lawsuit. Payments will be made to the four named claimants Rodriguez, Ruz, Sanchez, Capote, and four other identified class members. The agreement also requires DMS to accommodate employees who complain about attending and/or participating in religious courses or other religious work-related activities for religious reasons; to notify EEOC if employees request a religious accommodation; to adopt an anti-discrimination policy that explains to employees their rights under Title VII with respect to religious discrimination; and to conduct training for DMS employees covering Title VII, and specifically focusing on religious discrimination. 
 
"We are pleased that we have been able to secure relief for all claimants and class members, and to ensure that policies are in place to prevent religious discrimination at DMS," said Robert Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District. "The law is clear: An employer cannot force his or her religion on staff by mandating that employees practice or espouse a certain religion, and cannot refuse to accommodate employees after they object to such discriminatory employment practices."

Malcolm Medley, director of the EEOC's Miami District, added, "I am proud of the work our investigators and legal team did in this case. Employers cannot make participation in religious practices a mandatory condition of employment. Moreover, employees who object to such mandatory practices and request an accommodation cannot be in fear of retaliation."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Laurinburg Companies Unlawfully Fired Pentecostal Employee for Refusing to Wear Pants, Federal Agency Charged

Scottish Food Systems, Inc. and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc. will pay $40,000 and furnish other relief to resolve a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com­mission (EEOC), the agency announced today. Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home are based in Laurinburg, N.C. and jointly operate a chain of Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in North Carolina.

According to the EEOC's complaint, Sheila Silver converted to Pentecostalism in 2010. As a member of the Pentecostal church, Silver believes women cannot wear pants. In accordance with this religious belief, Silver has not worn pants since the fall of 2010. Silver has worked for various Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants since 1992. Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home purchased the KFC restaurant where Silver worked in Rocky Mount, N.C., in April 2013. The EEOC's complaint alleged that the companies informed Silver she must wear pants to work because of their dress code policy. According to the EEOC, Silver told Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home she could not wear pants because of her religious beliefs. However, the companies ultimately fired her for refusing to wear pants to work.
 
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs as long as doing so would not pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit on September 19, 2013 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (EEOC v. Scottish Food Systems, Inc. and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00796) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary damages, the three-year consent decree resolving the suit requires Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home to adopt a formal religious accommodation policy and to conduct an annual training program on the requirements of Title VII and its prohibition against religious discrimination. Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home will also post a copy of their anti-discrimination policy at all of their facilities.

"Employers must accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious belief when such an accommodation would not pose an undue hardship," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "This case demonstrates the EEOC's continued commitment to fighting religious discrimination in the workplace."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Federal Agency Charged Muslim Trainer Was Constructively Discharged for Not Shaving Beard

 

McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced. 
 
The EEOC had charged that a restaurant formerly owned by McDonald's in Fresno refused a request from a Muslim employee, a crew trainer, to grow a beard for religious reasons which lead to his constructive discharge in September 2005. 
 
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make reasonable accommodations to the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees and applicants as long as this causes no harm to the business. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (EEOC v. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02065AWI-SAB) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

Aside from the monetary relief for the crew trainer, the two-year consent decree settling the suit provides that McDonald's will reinforce training of its managers and staff and redistribute its existing policies related to religious discrimination and accommodation. 
 
"We commend McDonald's for its commitment to training and ensuring that its staff and managers are well-versed on laws relating to religious discrimination," said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office. "We hope other employers follow McDonald's lead in promoting training and development of extensive anti-discrimination policies."

Melissa Barrios, director of the EEOC's Fresno Local Office, said, "Workers have the right to request an accommodation which would allow them to work while still practicing their religious beliefs. Employers must consider such requests and ensure that no negative actions are taken against workers who exercise this right."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Tri-County Lexus to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

Car Dealership Refused to Hire Sikh Applicant and Failed to Provide Him With a Religious Accommodation, Federal Agency Charged

 

United Galaxy Inc., a car dealership in Little Falls, New Jersey doing business as Tri-County Lexus, will pay $50,000 and provide other significant relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

 
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Tri-County Lexus strictly enforced its dress code policy without granting reasonable religious accommodations, and refused to hire Gurpreet Kherha, a member of the Sikh faith, because of its policy. Kherha'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 said. Tri-County Lexus requested that Kherha shave his beard, and he refused to comply because of his religious beliefs. As a result, Tri-County Lexus denied him the job, the agency charged.

Religious discrimination in employment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which provide that employers may not discriminate on the basis of an employee's or applicant's religion and, where appropriate, must provide reasonable accommodations to sincerely-held religious beliefs or practices. The EEOC first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process before filing suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage (EEOC v. United Galaxy Inc., d/b/a Tri-County Lexus, Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-04987 (ES)(SCM)).
 
In addition to the $50,000 in monetary relief to Kherha, the two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Tri-County Lexus from future discrimination on the basis of religion. Tri-County Lexus will also provide anti-discrimination training to both employees and management. The dealership will also post a notice regarding the resolution of the lawsuit and appoint an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

"This case represents an example of EEOC's commitment to vindicating the employment rights of those who want to observe their religion," said District Director Kevin Berry of the EEOC's New York District Office.

EEOC Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman added, "We are pleased that Tri-County Lexus partnered with us to resolve this suit. This settlement will protect employees and future applicants from religious discrimination and inform all that the EEOC will take vigorous action to remedy it. It will also serve as a vehicle to educate other employers about the Sikh faith."

The Newark Area Office is part of the EEOC's New York District, which has jurisdiction over cases in New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and northern New Jersey.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

MCM Elegante Hotel Settles Religious Discrimination Suit

Albuquerque Hotel Refused Muslim Woman's Request to Wear Head Scarf, Federal Agency Charged

 

704 HTL Operating, LLC and Investment Corporation of America, doing business as MCM Elegante Hotel in Albuquerque, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for $100,000 and other relief, the agency announced.

The settlement resolves an EEOC lawsuit filed on Sept. 21, 2011, EEOC v. 704 HTL Operating, LLC, and Investment Corporation of America, d/b/a MCM Elegante, 11-cv-00845 JCH/LFG, for alleged religious discrimination against Safia Abdullah, who was hired for a housekeeping position at the hotel. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that this employer would not allow Abdullah to work unless she removed her religious head covering, and fired her when she declined to do so.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful to refuse to hire or discharge any applicant or employee because of religion or religious practices including requesting religious accommodation. The law further provides that employers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. Such accommodations, for example, may include allowing individuals to wear religious clothing or take time off for religious observances.

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The case was set for trial to commence on Dec. 2, 2013.

In addition to monetary relief for Ms. Abdullah, the consent decree settling the suit provides for other important relief, including an injunction prohibiting future discriminatory practices; institution of policies and procedures to address religious discrimination and retaliation; training for employees of MCM, and managers and human resource officials of both defendants on religious discrimination; and posting a notice advising employees of their rights under Title VII.

"Employers should be aware that they have a duty to provide reasonable accommodation to employees' religious beliefs and practices," said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah. "Wearing a religious head covering is a common religious practice which employers can usually accommodate without any undue hardship."

EEOC Area Director Derick Newton of the Commission's Albuquerque office said, "Religious discrimination continues to be a high priority for the EEOC, and we take this issue very seriously."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

UPS Failed to Accommodate Jehovah's Witness's Request

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), the world's largest package delivery company, agreed to pay $70,000 and furnish significant injunctive relief to settle a religious accommodation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

According to the EEOC, the claimant was a Jehovah's Witness whom UPS hired as a part-time loader at its Saddle Brook, N.J. facility in April 2011. Shortly after his new-employee orientation with UPS the claimant made a request for 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 just a few days later. 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.
 
The EEOC charged that the hiring manager's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes religious discrimination in the workplace illegal and requires reasonable accommodations for religious practices, absent an undue hardship to the employer. The EEOC's lawsuit (EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-07334) was brought in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and filed in Newark after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to paying the $70,000 in damages to the claimant, UPS is enjoined discriminating against employees based on their religion, or from retaliating against employees for opposing such discrimination. The company has agreed to post its policy outlining the procedure for requesting a religious accommodation in conspicuous places throughout its Saddle Brook location, conduct anti-discrimination training for managers and supervisors, and discuss the policy with employees at the location during pre-work meetings.

"We are pleased that this resolution puts mechanisms in place to make it clear that employees are entitled to reasonable accommodation of their religious practices," said Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney for the EEOC's New York District Office.

EEOC Trial Attorney Charles F. Coleman Jr. added, "Religious discrimination in the workplace cannot be tolerated. Businesses have a clear legal duty under federal law to handle requests for religious accommodations from their employees with due amounts of consideration."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Settlement reached in Abercrombie & Fitch discrimination case

A settlement has been reached in case involving a Muslim woman fired by trendy retailer Abercrombie & Fitch for wearing her hijab head scarf while working at a California store.

Details of the settlement will be announced later.

The case has a big impact on workplace and retailer dress codes for workers and how those policies mesh with employees’ religious beliefs. A number of faiths, including Islam, have dress codes like the hijab worn by Hani Khan. The 20-year-old was fired in 2010 over violating the Ohio-based retail chain’s dress code.

Khan filed a religious discrimination lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC then sued Abercrombie in federal court. U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled against Abercrombie and in favor of Khan earlier this month.

The ruling nixed the retailer’s arguments for dismissing the case based on a contention that dress code policies are about the Abercrombie’s brand. The company also argued that employees are walking advertisements. Gonzalez Rogers, an appointee of President Barack Obama, shot down those arguments.

Abercrombie and its Hollister brand have several stores in the Phoenix and Tucson markets.

Marian Zapata-Rossa, a labor and employment attorney with the Quarles & Brady LLP law firm in Phoenix, said the ruling sets a precedent in a number of other potential religious discrimination cases where workplace dress codes could clash with employees religious dictates.

Abercrombie officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the settlement.

Source: South Florida Business Journal

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Scottish Food Systems / Laurinburg KFC Take Home for Religious Discrimination

Laurinburg Companies Unlawfully Fired Pentecostal Employee for Refusing to Wear Pants, Federal Agency Charges

 

Scottish Food Systems, Inc. and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc., two North Carolina corporations that operate a chain of Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in eastern North Carolina, violated federal law by failing to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and firing her because of her religion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed.

According to the EEOC's complaint, Sheila Silver converted to Pentecostalism in 2010. As a member of the Pentecostal church, Silver believes women should wear skirts and, in accordance with this religious belief, has not worn pants since the fall of 2010. Silver has worked for various Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants since 1992. Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home purchased the KFC restaurant where Silver worked in April 2013. At that time, they informed Silver she must wear pants to work because of their dress code policy. Silver told Scottish Food Systems and Laurinburg KFC Take Home she could not wear pants because of her religious beliefs. The companies ultimately fired her for refusing to wear pants to work. 
 
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employees' due to their religious beliefs as long as doing so does not pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (EEOC v. Scottish Food Systems, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc. d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken, Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-00796) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

"Employers must respect employees' sincerely held religious beliefs and carefully consider requests made by employees based on those beliefs," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office, which includes the EEOC's Raleigh Area Office, where the charge of discrimination was filed. "This case demonstrates the EEOC's continued commitment to fighting religious discrimination in the workplace."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Rizza Cadillac of Tinley Park, Citing Harassment of Arab and Muslim Sales Staff

Rizza Cadillac, Inc. of Tinley Park, Ill., a suburb south of Chicago, violated federal law by encouraging a work environment which was hostile and offensive to Muslim and Arab sales staff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.
 
According to the EEOC's suit, Rizza Cadillac managers fostered the discriminatory work environment using offensive slurs, such as "terrorist," "sand n----r," and "Hezbollah," and making mocking and insulting references to the Qur'an and the manner in which Muslims pray. 
 
John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District Office, managed the administrative investigation which preceded EEOC's lawsuit.

"Our investigation revealed that Rizza Cadillac failed to take prompt and effective measures to stop and prevent this abusive misconduct, as they were required to do by federal law," said Rowe. "Employees should be judged by their performance, not their religion or ethnicity."

Harassment based on national origin or religion violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 1:13-cv-06696) this morning in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case was assigned to District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland. It seeks monetary relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, an order requiring the dealership to implement measures to prevent a recurrence of harassment, and a permanent injunction against future discrimination.

"Employers may not allow managers to repeatedly make offensive slurs and insults about an employee's religion or national origin," said John C. Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago. "Comments implying that all Muslims are terrorists cannot be excused or minimized by calling it mere 'banter' about a minority ethnicity or religion. The EEOC stands ready to protect Muslim and Arab workers when they are subjected to such harassment."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination in EEOC Suit, Court Says

Judge Finds Firing Muslim Employee for Wearing Hijab Was Illegal

A federal judge has found clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch liable for religious discrimination when it fired Muslim employee Umme-Hani Khan for wearing her hijab (religious headscarf), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. The ruling came in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the federal agency in which Khan intervened.

According to the lawsuit, filed in 2011, 19-year-old Khan started working at the Hollister store (an Abercrombie & Fitch brand targeting teenagers aged 14 through 18) at the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo, Calif., in October 2009. As an "impact associate," the Muslim teen worked primarily in the stockroom. At first she was asked to wear headscarves in Hollister colors, which she agreed to do. However, in mid-February 2010, she was informed that her hijab violated Abercrombie's "Look Policy," a company-wide dress code, and was told she would be taken off schedule unless she removed her headscarf while at work. Khan was fired on Feb. 23 for refusing to take off the hijab that her religious beliefs compelled her to wear.

In an order issued September 3, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers noted, "It is undisputed that Khan was terminated 'for non-compliance with the company's Look Policy.' Khan's only violation of the Look Policy was the headscarf." The court dismissed Abercrombie's argument that "its Look Policy goes to the 'very heart of [its] business model' and thus any requested accommodation to deviate from the Look Policy threatens the company's success, " observing that "Abercrombie only offers unsubstantiated opinion testimony of its own employees to support its claim of undue hardship. The deposition testimony and declarations from Abercrombie witnesses demonstrate their personal beliefs, but are not linked to any credible evidence."

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, "No one should have to choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. "The court sent a clear message that it was illegal to fire Ms. Khan solely for wearing her hijab, and U.S. District Courts are finding that Abercrombie cannot establish an undue hardship defense to the wearing of hijabs based on its 'Look Policy.' This is a clear victory for civil rights."

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs or practices of employees unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC & Khan v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. et al, Case No. 11-CV-03162-YGR (N.D. Cal.) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Two non-profit organizations, the Legal Aid Society/Employment Law Center and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also represent Khan, who intervened in the case.

The court order (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 2013 WL 4726137, N.D. Cal., 2013) granted the EEOC's and Khan's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the following affirmative defenses asserted by Abercrombie: failure to exhaust administrative remedies; undue hardship; and infringement upon its First Amendment right to commercial free speech. The court also denied Abercrombie's cross-motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief and punitive damages. Trial, now limited to damages and injunctive relief, is set for Sept. 30.
EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "Ms. Khan willingly color-coordinated her headscarf with the store's brand and capably performed her stockroom duties for four and half months until a visiting manager flagged her hijab as a violation of the company's 'Look Policy.' What undue burden did this retail giant face that prevented it from allowing her to practice her faith? None, clearly."

This is the third time that a district court has ruled against Abercrombie's undue hardship defense in cases involving Muslim employees or applicants wearing hijabs. In July 2011, a district court in Tulsa, Okla., ruled that it was religious discrimination for the company not to hire a Muslim applicant for a sales position due to her hijab. That case is pending on appeal in the 10th Circuit. In April, 2013, another judge in the Northern District of California ruled for the EEOC on the issue of undue hardship in an unrelated case. That case is still awaiting the resolution of other legal and factual issues.

According to company information, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. operates retail stores under the brands Abercrombie & Fitch, for men and women over the age of 18; abercrombie kids targeting preteens between ages seven and 14; and Hollister Co. for teenagers aged 14 through 18, with more than 1,000 stores in North America.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues JetStream Ground Services at Denver Airport for Religious Discrimination

Ground Services Contractor Refused to Accommodate or Employ Muslim Women Who Requested to Cover Their Hair and Wear Skirts, Federal Agency Charges

A Florida-based airline ground services company violated federal law by refusing to accommodate or hire Muslim female applicants and employees over hair and dress issues, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Denver. The agency also alleged that women were retaliated against after they requested religious accommodations and/or complained about discrimination.

According to the EEOC's suit, when JetStream Ground Services, Inc., assumed the contract to clean cabins for United Airlines in 2008 at Denver International Airport (DIA), it refused employment to Safia Abdulle Ali, Sahra Bashi Abdirahman, Hana Bokku, Sadiyo Hassan Jama, Amino Warsame and other female Muslim applicants and employees at DIA who requested a deviation from the company's dress code policy in order to comport with their religious beliefs. JetStream did this even though many of the women had worked for years cleaning cabins for United Airlines with JetStream's predecessor, Air Serv. Corporation, with accommodations. But when the women came to interview with JetStream alongside other Air Serv. employees, they were criticized by management for their appearance, refused accommodations, and denied employment.

Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals because of sincerely held religious beliefs and/or practices violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to engage in a good-faith interactive process with employees to provide workplace accommodation for sincerely-held religious beliefs and/or practices absent undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (EEOC v. JetStream Ground Services, Inc., 1:13-cv-02340 CMA) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.

The EEOC seeks monetary damages on behalf of Ali, Abdirahman, Bokku, Jama, and Warsame, as well as other female Muslim applicants and employees at DIA who were denied accommodation, equal employment opportunities, or retaliated against for requesting accommodations or complaining of discrimination. The agency also seeks training on anti-discrimination laws, an injunction, posting of anti-discrimination notices at the worksite and other injunctive relief.

"Under federal law, employers have an obligation to explore options for accommodating religiously observant employees," said EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill. "An employer is required to accommodate employees' religious beliefs so long as doing so does not create an undue burden on the employer. In many faiths, including certain Baptist and Pentecostal congregations, the Greek Orthodox Church, Orthodox Judaism, and Islam, to name just a few, women have dress requirements as part of their sincerely held religious beliefs. An employer cannot refuse an accommodation or deny women employment simply because it does not like how they dress."

Denver EEOC Field Director Nancy Sienko added, "A deviation from a dress code is one of the simplest and least onerous accommodations an employer can offer. When they refuse to accommodate female dress requirements found across many religions, employers disproportionately isolate women from the workforce and discriminate based on religion."

JetStream, headquartered in Jupiter, Fla., provides ground services to airline fleets across the country.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Nags Head Hotel to Pay $45,000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Hotel Fired Seventh-Day Adventist Employee Over Sabbath Issue, Agency Charged

A hotel group which owns and operates the Comfort Inn Oceanfront South in Nags Head, N.C., has agreed to pay $45,000 and provide substantial additional relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced. 
 
The EEOC's suit charged that the hotel group refused to provide Claudia Neal, a Seventh-Day Adventist, with a religious accommodation of not having to work on her Sabbath, which is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Neal began working at the hotel in May 2009. Initially, Neal's request not to work on her Sabbath was honored. However, a change in management occurred in October 2010, and in November of that year, the hotel group refused to provide her with a religious accommodation, and fired her.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Landmark Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Dare Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Jain and Associates, LP d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; and JRS Partners, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-158) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to providing monetary relief to Neal, the hotel group will implement policies designed to prevent religious discrimination and conduct training on anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws. The hotel group will also provide reports to the EEOC regarding future requests for religious accommodation.
"Employers need to understand their obligation to balance the conduct of their business with employees' needs and rights to practice their religion," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office.

"Where there is minimal impact on the business, those religious needs must be accommodated. No person should ever be forced to choose between her religion and her job."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues United Cellular for Religious Discrimination

Company Fired Seventh Day Adventist After Refusing to Accommodate His Religious Beliefs, Federal Agency Charged

United Cellular, Inc., an Alabama corporation, violated federal law by subjecting an employee to religious discrimination by refusing to accommodate his religious belief as a practicing Seventh Day Adventist, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed on June 27, 2013.
 
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Charles Embry, a practicing Seventh Day Adventist, was hired by United Cellular in July 2011 as a full-time Authorized Service Center Technician and provided retail services to Sprint customers in the Huntsville, Ala. area. He explained his religious convictions during an initial interview, advising United Cellular of the need for the accommodation of not being scheduled for work on his Sabbath, from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.

In the fall of 2011, United Cellular began to schedule Embry for work on the weekends despite his request for an accommodation. When Embry continued to exercise his religious faith by honoring his Sabbath, United Cellular terminated his employment by telephone.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination. This includes requiring an employer to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the employer's business. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. United Cellular, Inc., Case No. CV-13-JHE-1207-NE) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, after an investigation was completed by the agency, and after the agency attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks monetary and other relief, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement into the position the complaining employee previously held, and injunctive relief.

Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC's Birmingham District, said, "The law protects employees against religious discrimination and the Commission is committed to enforcing the full scope of Title VII's prohibition against all forms of religious discrimination concerning all faiths and in all industries."

"Title VII requires that employers grant reasonable requests to accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so does would impose an undue hardship for the employer." said C. Emanuel Smith, regional attorney for the EEOC's Birmingham District Office.

United Cellular is a Sprint Preferred Retailer, providing retail services and products to Sprint customers and acting as a liaison between customers and Sprint. United Cellular is headquartered in Irving, Texas and has over 100 retail locations in eleven states with approximately 598 employees.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination

Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs

Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., Civil Action No. 13 C 01240-JES-BGC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, assigned to U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "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. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Dynamic Medical Services for Religious Discrimination

Federal Agency Charges Company Required Employees to Participate in Scientology Religious Practices, Fired Two for Refusing to Participate

Dynamic Medical Services, Inc., a Miami company owned by Dr. Dennis Nobbe and which provides medical and chiropractic services, violated federal law by requiring employees to attend courses that involved Scientology religious practices, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC's suit, the company required Norma Rodriguez, Maykel Ruz, Rommy Sanchez, Yanileydis Capote and other employees to spend at least half their work days in courses that involved Scientology religious practices, such as screaming at ashtrays or staring at someone for eight hours without moving. The company also instructed employees to attend courses at the Church of Scientology. Additionally, the company required Sanchez to undergo an "audit" by connecting herself to an "E-meter," which Scientologists believe is a religious artifact, and required her to undergo "purification" treatment at the Church of Scientology. According to the EEOC's suit, employees repeatedly asked not to attend the courses but were told it was a requirement of the job. In the cases of Rodriguez and Sanchez, when they refused to participate in Scientology religious practices and/or did not conform to Scientology religious beliefs, they were terminated.

Requiring employees to conform to religious practices and beliefs espoused by the employer, creating a hostile work environment, and failing to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of an employee all violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit, EEOC v. Dynamic Medical Services, Inc., (Case No. 1:13-cv-21666), seeks back pay for Rodriguez and Sanchez, compensatory and punitive damages for all named claimants and a class of individuals subjected to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment, and injunctive relief ordering the company to stop requiring employee participation in courses involving religious practices, among other types of injunctive relief.

"Employees' freedom from religious coercion at the workplace must be protected," said Robert Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office. "These actions are a shameful violation of federal law."

The EEOC's Miami District director, Malcolm Medley, said, "When an employer makes an employment decision based on employees' failure to adopt the employer's religious beliefs, it violates federal law. The EEOC will act vigorously to protect the rights of workers who are subjected to religious harassment and coercion in the workplace."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.