Religious Accommodations: A Tale of Two Cases

Claims of discrimination base on religion have risen significantly over the last decade. This is likely due to the aftermath of the September 11th attacks in addition to increased immigration as reflected in the workforce.   The EEOC has joined many employees (current and former) in bringing suit against their employers. 

The law requires that an employer or other covered entity must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business.  In these cases, the employee must show that he or she:  (1) has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement, (2) notified the employer of the belief, and (3) was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting job requirement.  If the employee can show these elements, the employer may offer as a defense either that it offered a reasonable accommodation, or could not do so without undue hardship, i.e., more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business.

A Tale of Two Cases

Time off for prayer
JBS USA, LLC recently prevailed against the EEOC in a religious accommodation case.  The EEOC filed a lawsuit in federal court against JBS, a meatpacking company, claiming that JBS failed to reasonably accommodate Muslim employees’ religious practices by denying them unscheduled prayer and meal breaks during Ramadan. The EEOC alleged that JBS’s failure to allow Muslim employees to take unscheduled breaks was unreasonable and discriminatory. 

However, court concluded that JBS had proven that the unscheduled prayer breaks would impose more than de minimus costs on the company.  The unscheduled absence of workers from their jobs would 1) adversely affect food safety and 2) cause an imposition on co-workers who would have to cover for the absent workers.   JBS showed that if a Muslim employee left a production line for an unscheduled prayer break, and the line was not stopped or slowed, the remaining workers on the line might not be able to keep up with required food safety practices. If the line was slowed or stopped, raw meat might be exposed to air and bacteria.   Also, when a Muslim employee took a prayer break, another employee would need to leave his or her own work aside to fill in. Non-Muslim employees would be required to work harder, and under potentially dangerous conditions, as a result of the prayer breaks.  

Based on this evidence, the court found in favor of the employer.


Dress Codes
A federal judge recently found clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch liable for religious discrimination when it fired a Muslim employee for wearing her hijab (religious headscarf). 

A&F stated that the employee was terminated for non-compliance with the company's Look Policy.  A&F argued 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." The court found that Abercrombie only offered “unsubstantiated opinion testimony of its own employees to support its claim of undue hardship” and that these opinions “were not linked to any credible evidence."

What caused the different outcomes?  
If you cannot demonstrate using objective data or evidence that accommodation will cause undue hardship, you should consider granting the accommodation.  

What can you do?
If an employee notifies you that s/he needs an accommodation for religious reasons, you and the employee should engage in an interactive process to discuss the request and determine possible accommodations   If it would not pose an undue hardship, it may be difficult for you to justify not granting an accommodation.  

You should consider seeking legal advice in evaluating whether an accommodation is reasonable and whether it might result in an undue hardship.  Please contact me with any questions or visit my website.