Less colloquially, last Friday, the EEOC released this 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.” You can read the EEOC press release here.
Last week, the EEOC announced (here) that it had filed this lawsuit against a Massachusetts employer, in which it alleges that the company violated federal law when it refused to effectively accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs.
It’s a wicked pissah!
You know, being a client of the Blogger King has its perks. (That’s me. I’m the Blogger King). When I’m not litigating and counseling on employment-related issues, I’m taking blog post requests and emailing weekly updates of HR goodies that don’t make it onto the blog.
But, with my DropBox and Pocket chock full of recent cases, I’ll summarize the recent biggies.
Yesterday, I had one of those moments. You know the ones.
For me, it was when a client asked me when I was going to blog about the Muslim workers in Colorado who were denied prayer breaks and, then, allegedly fired for protesting.
So, I did what any self respecting employment-lawyer-blogger would do: I Googled “Muslim Prayer Employee Protest Colorado Fired,” and I promised a client-inspired Wednesday post.
The bottom of the first page of this recent federal court opinion in EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc. really grabbed my attention:
In December 2008 or January 2009, Edward Briggs became Star Transport’s Human Resources Manager. He received no training on anti-discrimination laws, was not aware of any exceptions to the “at will” employment policy, had never heard of Title VII, and had no understanding of the company’s obligation to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs. Gene Ozella was Star Transport’s Personnel Manager from 2008 to 2011; he also received no training on anti-discrimination laws…
How do you think this religious discrimination case is going to end for the employer?
Do you want the answer from me? Oh, this is awkward. I was literally asking you. But, ok, fine. I think that I can help.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled that an employer that does not know that a job applicant may need a religious accommodation can discriminate against that job applicant. All that matters are the employer’s motivations.
Allow me to explain. Continue reading
It’s not that often that you come across a case where an employee alleges a hostile work environment based on religion. Sex? Sure. Race? Yep. But religion? Not so much.
Yet, when your employees are faced with the choice “My religion or my job,” it’s time to call the lawyers.
Cause, I mean, there’s proselytizing. And then there’s
And the Czech judge scored my lede a 4.3. Well, the second she starts paying my legal bills, maybe, I’ll give a damn. Until then…
What was I talking about? Oh yes, religious discrimination.
Over the weekend, I read this PA federal court opinion about an atheist who claimed that his boss proselytized to him about religion, even forcing him to wear a badge, which bore the company’s mission statement: “This company is not only a business, it is a ministry. It is set on standards that are higher than man’s own. Our goal is to run this company in a way most pleasing to the lord [sic]….” The atheist claims that he covered up the mission statement with duct tape and, when he refused to remove the tape, the company fired him.
The Court, which initially put the kibosh on the plaintiff’s religious bias, reconsidered and allowed the plaintiff’s claims to survive a motion to dismiss. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog
