Colloquially, today’s topic is “reverse religious discrimination.” But, more accurately, it’s about a claim of “religious nonconformity.”
In plain English, what happens when an employee refuses to comply with their employer’s religion?
The case involves a video editor who started working for a company in 2019. At first, things were good for him. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and things went south in the spring of 2020.
According to the video editor, the company’s owner and management were hostile to employees taking protective measures against the virus. Specifically, the company refused employee requests to work remotely and actively discouraged any preventative measures, including social distancing and masking.
Ironically, the espousal of Christian values initially attracted the employee to the company. But, the video editor claimed that things got carried away when the company’s policy was that prayer was the “exclusive way to prevent COVID infection” and that anything else showed a “weakness of spirit” and was “against the will of God.”
The video editor further claimed that the company “mocked and derided” employees who did take preventive measures. Specifically, the company allegedly criticized him for social distancing and wearing a mask. He described the work environment as a “cult-like attitude” that “would regularly and aggressively promote their own religious beliefs against COVID-19 precautions.”
According to the video editor, the company pretextually terminated his employment in July 2020 for a “lack of humility” and because he was “not a good fit.” In reality, he was fired for refusing to submit to his employer’s religious practices.
Title VII does not permit employers to discriminate against employees who fail to comply with their employer’s religion. Many courts have examined this issue. One noted that the claim is that an employee’s “lack of adherence to the religious beliefs promoted by the [employer] was the genesis of the discrimination.” Another court placed the focus on “the religious beliefs of the employer, and the fact that [the employee] does not share them” — not on the specific religious beliefs of the employee himself.”
In this case, the plaintiff strongly believed that ‘God helps those that help themselves.” However, his beliefs are immaterial to a religious nonconformity claim. Instead, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals focused on the company’s religious principles and how it allegedly proselytized that masks and social distancing were “against the will of God.” Further, the plaintiff stated that the company expected its employees to adopt its religious views that COVID-19 precautions demonstrated ‘weakness of spirit’ and that prayer was the proper way to avoid COVID-19 infection. Ultimately, if the company terminated the plaintiff for nonconformity rather than because he was not a good fit, it violated Title VII.
And that’s religious discrimination too.