Tag: EEOC

Hillshire Brands Company Pays $4 Million to Settle Race Discrimination Suit

EEOCSealAfrican American Bakery Workers Subjected to Racist Comments and Graffiti in the Worksite, Federal Agency Charged

DALLAS – Hillshire Brands Company (formerly known as the Sara Lee Corporation) will pay $4 million to a group of 74 African-American former employees and provide other significant relief to settle a lawsuit where they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment at a former Sara Lee facility in Paris, Texas, the agency announced today.

EEOC claimed African-American employees were subjected to racist graffiti on the walls of the bathrooms and locker room. The former bakery employees also alleged that during work hours, they were berated with racial slurs by supervisors and other white co-workers, and complaints by the plant workers went unaddressed by management.

Race discrimination in the workplace, including race harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 2:15-cv-1347) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“The Commission completed an extensive investigation at the Sara Lee plant, which included conducting interviews with the former bakery workers,” said Meaghan L. Shepard, trial attorney for the Dallas District of EEOC. “EEOC determined racial slurs and graffiti continued at the facility in Paris for years, until the doors finally closed in November 2011.”

“EEOC strongly believes it is critically important for companies to set policies and provide effective avenues for complaints to address racial harassment in the workplace,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Suzanne Anderson. “African-American workers on the Sara Lee bakery production lines in Paris felt embarrassed and intimidated by the graffiti in the bathroom and the racial slurs on the production floor. Strong corporate policies and quick remedial action protects against this type of workplace discrimination.”

The two-year consent decree settling the case provides for an injunction where Hillshire Brands will implement various preventative approaches regarding discrimination or harassment against any employee on the basis of race and will periodically report incidents or investigations to EEOC. Hillshire Brands also agreed to engage in remedial measures such as anti-discrimination training and implementation of procedures to prevent and promptly address graffiti issues.

Belinda McCallister, acting director of EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “We are pleased with the approach taken by the employer to acknowledge the hostile environment that once existed and for taking positive steps toward ensuring a healthy workplace in the future.”

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

See original news release here: http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-22-15.cfm

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC Sues McDonald's for Disability Discrimination

mcdonalds logoFast Food Giant Denied Sign Language Interpreter for Deaf Applicant

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants of Missouri violated federal law by refusing to accommodate and hire a deaf applicant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the suit, Ricky Washington, who is deaf, applied online for a job at a McDonald’s restaurant in Belton, Mo. in June 2012. Washington indicated on his application that he attended Kansas School for the Deaf. Washington also said he had previous job experience working as a cook and clean-up team member at a McDonald’s restaurant in Louisiana in 2009. When the Belton restaurant manager learned Washington needed a sign language interpreter for his job interview, she canceled the interview and never rescheduled it, despite Washington’s sister volunteering to act as the interpreter. Restaurant management continued to interview and hire new workers after Washington made several attempts to schedule an interview.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for job applicants so they will have equal opportunities during the application process. EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al, 4:15-cv-01004-FJG) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including training for all McDonald’s managers on accommodations for applicants with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf.

EEOC St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. said, “Removing obstacles in the hiring process for people with disabilities is a national priority for EEOC. All employers, but especially large ones, should join with the agency to make sure everyone has equal access to the employment process.”

“People with disabilities have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,” added EEOC Regional Attorney Andrea G. Baran. “Providing equal employment opportunities to all job applicants – including those with disabilities – is not just the law, it is good for our economy and our workplaces.”

According to company information, McDonald’s is a global fast food provider that serves over sixty-nine million customers per day in 100 different countries.  The Belton, Mo. restaurant is owned and operated by the corporation’s world-wide headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois.

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The original content can be viewed here.

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC Sues McDonald’s for Disability Discrimination

mcdonalds logoFast Food Giant Denied Sign Language Interpreter for Deaf Applicant

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants of Missouri violated federal law by refusing to accommodate and hire a deaf applicant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the suit, Ricky Washington, who is deaf, applied online for a job at a McDonald’s restaurant in Belton, Mo. in June 2012. Washington indicated on his application that he attended Kansas School for the Deaf. Washington also said he had previous job experience working as a cook and clean-up team member at a McDonald’s restaurant in Louisiana in 2009. When the Belton restaurant manager learned Washington needed a sign language interpreter for his job interview, she canceled the interview and never rescheduled it, despite Washington’s sister volunteering to act as the interpreter. Restaurant management continued to interview and hire new workers after Washington made several attempts to schedule an interview.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for job applicants so they will have equal opportunities during the application process. EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al, 4:15-cv-01004-FJG) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including training for all McDonald’s managers on accommodations for applicants with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf.

EEOC St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. said, “Removing obstacles in the hiring process for people with disabilities is a national priority for EEOC. All employers, but especially large ones, should join with the agency to make sure everyone has equal access to the employment process.”

“People with disabilities have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,” added EEOC Regional Attorney Andrea G. Baran. “Providing equal employment opportunities to all job applicants – including those with disabilities – is not just the law, it is good for our economy and our workplaces.”

According to company information, McDonald’s is a global fast food provider that serves over sixty-nine million customers per day in 100 different countries.  The Belton, Mo. restaurant is owned and operated by the corporation’s world-wide headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois.

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The original content can be viewed here.

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC’S Lawsuit Against Costco to Proceed

Costco smallA federal district court judge ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) claim that Costco violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to prevent a male customer from stalking and harassing a female employee at the company’s Glenview, Ill. warehouse will be decided by a jury.

Judge Ruben Castillo, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment on EEOC’s claim it failed to protect one of its former employees from a sexually hostile work environment. The decision in EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 14-cv-6553, was entered on Dec. 16, 2015. The court announced it will select a jury trial date at a status hearing in January.

The court said it found evidence the employee was subjected to harassing behavior by a customer for more than a year, including ominous staring, unwanted physical touching, unwanted requests for dates and overly intrusive personal questions. The court found evidence the customer interactions continued to escalate, even though he had been talked to by Costco’s managers and the Glenview police to avoid her. The court also concluded that, added together and given the length of time over which the incidents occurred, they amounted to a level of a hostile work environment.

The court also found evidence Costco failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, noting that Costco waited more than a year to ban the customer from the store. The court granted summary judgment for Costco on EEOC’s constructive discharge claim.

Costco is an international membership warehouse retailer which, according to its website, has over 650 locations worldwide, annual revenues over $100 billion, and over 125,000 employees in the United States.

EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. This information was previously published on the EEOC website, www.eeoc.gov.

Article By U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC Seeks to Clarify Application of GINA to Wellness Programs

Earlier this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a proposed rule that would amend the agency’s regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as they relate to employer wellness programs. Now, the EEOC has turned its attention to Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) as it relates to employer wellness programs that are part of group health plans.

On October 20, 2015, the EEOC issued a proposed rule, or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), to amend the regulations implementing Title II of GINA, together with a fact sheet and a series of questions and answers. The proposed rule, which is available in its entirety online, would allow employers that offer wellness programs as part of group health plans to provide limited financial and other incentives or “inducements” in exchange for an employee’s spouse providing information about his or her current or past health status.

Title II of GINA protects job applicants and current and former employees from employment discrimination based on their genetic information. As stated in the NPRM, Congress enacted GINA to address concerns prevalent at the time that individuals would not take advantage of the increasing number of genetic tests that could inform them as to whether they were at risk of developing specific diseases or disorders due to fear that genetic information would be used to deny health coverage or employment. Consequently, GINA expressly prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from using genetic information in making decisions about employment in all circumstances, without exceptions. It also restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information. In addition, it strictly limits employers from disclosing genetic information. Genetic information includes, among other things, information about the manifestation of a disease or disorder in the family members of an individual. The term “family members” includes spouses.

There are only six very limited circumstances under GINA in which an employermay request, require, or purchase genetic information about an applicant or employee. One of the six exceptions applies when an employee voluntarily accepts health or genetic services offered by an employer, including such services offered as part of a wellness program. The proposed regulations are in response to the numerous inquiries received by the EEOC questioning whether an employer violates GINA by offering an employee an inducement if the employee’s spouse who is covered under the employer’s group health plancompletes a health risk assessment that seeks information about the spouse’s current or past health status, in connection with the spouse’s receipt of health or genetic services as part of an employer-sponsored wellness program.

The proposed regulations would clarify that GINA does not prohibit employers from offering limited inducements (whether in the form of rewards or penalties avoided) for the provision by spouses covered by the employer’s group health plan of information about their current or past health status as part of a health reimbursement account, which may include a medical questionnaire, a medical examination (e.g., to detect high blood pressure or high cholesterol), or both, as long as the provision of the information is voluntary and the individual from whom the information is being obtained provides prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization, which may include authorization in electronic format. The proposed regulations do not allow inducements in return for the spouse’s providing his or her own genetic information (including results of his or her genetic tests), for the current or past health status information of an employee’s children, or for the genetic information of an employee’s child.

The proposed regulations would include a requirement that any health or genetic services provided in connection with the requests for genetic information be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease, thereby aligning GINA’s regulations with those promulgated under the ADA as they relate to wellness programs. (The ADA permits employers to collect medical information as part of a wellness program only if the program and the disability-related inquiries and medical examinations that are part of the program are reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.) As discussed in the NPRM, collecting information on a health questionnaire without providing follow-up information or advice would not be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease. Additionally, a program would not be deemed reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease if it imposes, as a condition of obtaining a reward, an overly burdensome amount of time for participation, requires unreasonably intrusive procedures, or places significant costs related to medical examinations on employees. A program is also not reasonably designed if it exists merely to shift costs from the employer to targeted employees based on their health.

The proposed regulations would limit the total inducements (both financial and in-kind inducements, such as time-off awards, prizes, or other items of value, in the form of either rewards or penalties) to the employee and spouse to participate in a wellness program that is part of a group health plan and collects information about current and past health status to not more than 30 percent of the total cost of the plan in which the employee and any dependants are enrolled. The maximum portion of an incentive that may be offered to an employee alone may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage.

Finally, it is important to note that this proposal would not alter GINA’s absolute prohibition against the use of genetic information in making employment decisions.

The EEOC’s approach to wellness programs is still developing, and interested members of the public have until Tuesday, December 29, 2015, to submit comments on the NPRM to the EEOC in order to seek clarity or request changes and/or additions to the proposed rules.

Article By Mary Pat Gallagher of Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP

Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP | Copyright (c) 2015

EEOC Defends “Mark of The Beast” Ruling – Religious Beliefs Don’t Have To Make Sense To Be Protected

EEOCSealIn August 2015, the EEOC prevailed in a religious discrimination lawsuit against Consol Energy and was awarded in excess of $500,000.00.  Former Consol mine worker Beverly Butcher, who had been with the company for over 35 years, refused to use Consol’s new biometric hand scanners that were installed to track employee time and attendance.  He explained that he believed that scanners would leave the “mark of the beast” and would be a sign for the antichrist.  Consol required Butcher to use the scanners and refused to consider alternate means of tracking Butcher’s time, and Butcher believed he had no choice other than to retire.

Consol recently moved for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, arguing that Butcher had admitted that he did not actually believe the scanner would give him the mark of the beast (or any mark at all), but instead believed that future versions of the device would be capable of doing so. Butcher further admitted that his pastor did not agree with him that the hand scanners had any relationship to the mark of the beast.

The EEOC has responded to Consol’s motion and stated that although Butcher admitted that the current version hand scanner left no mark, he testified that these scanners “are being used as part of a system of identification being put into place that will be used to serve the antichrist as foretold in the New Testament Book of Revelation and which creates an identifier for followers of the antichrist known as ‘The Mark of the Beast,’” and that “[t]he fact that a believer draws a line at the first step in what he sincerely believes to be an immoral process rather than the last step of that process does not alter the employer’s accommodation duty.”

The EEOC responded to Consol’s efforts to poke holes in the logic of Butcher’s beliefs, stating that it is unconstitutional for Consol to demand theological accuracy or consistency.  “[A]s EEOC has previously pointed out, and as the Court instructed the jury, religious beliefs need not be seen as rational, doctrinally consistent, or accurate in order to be protected under Title VII.”

The takeaway of this is that if an employee seeks an accommodation based on religion, an employer should not subjectively evaluate the logic or wisdom of the employee’s beliefs, but instead should only consider whether the employee sincerely believes.

The case is EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., 1:13-cv-00215 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Article By Douglas M. Oldham of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rules That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Violates Title VII Of The 1964 Civil Rights Act

In a potentially groundbreaking decision that increases legal protections throughout the U.S. for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled on June 15, 2015, that existing civil rights law bars sexual orientation-based employment discrimination.  The EEOC addressed the question of whether the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“The Civil Rights Act”) bars anti-LGB discrimination in a charge brought by a Florida employee.

EEOC Employment discrimination LGB discrimination sexual orientation

The ruling was issued without objection from any members of the five-person commission, and while it technically only applies directly to federal employees’ claims, the EEOC also applies such rulings across the nation when it investigates claims of discrimination in private employment.  Although only the Supreme Court can issue a final, definitive ruling on the interpretation of The Civil Rights Act, EEOC decisions are given significant deference by federal courts.

Although the EEOC had been moving in this general direction with cases and field guidance addressing specific types of discrimination faced by gay people, the July 15 decision unequivocally states that sexual orientation is inherently an unlawful “sex-based consideration,” reasoning that sexual orientation discrimination “necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex” and constitutes “associational discrimination on the basis of sex.”  In making this ruling, the EEOC joins approximately 22 states that provide sexual orientation discrimination protections in employment.

Given that this EEOC decision is entitled to deference by federal courts, employers across the U.S. should anticipate that practices that could be construed as discriminatory on the basis of a worker’s sexual orientation will be challenged in federal court and subject the employer to potential liability.

For EEOC guidance on this issue, click the following link: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm

ARTICLE BY Gary M. Gansle of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Disability Discrimination And Harassment: Agency Says Retailer Denied Accommodations to Disabled Cancer Survivor

Agency Says Retailer Denied Accommodations to and Harassed a Disabled Cancer Survivor

CHICAGO – Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. violated federal law by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee at its Hodgkins, Ill., store who was disabled by bone cancer and failing to stop harassment of the employee, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday.

According to Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, who managed EEOC’s pre-suit administrative investigation, the Walmart store initially agreed to comply with employee Nancy Stack’s request that the company provide a chair in her work area in the fitting room and limit her scheduled work hours because treatment for bone cancer in her leg limited her ability to walk and stand. After complying with her scheduling accommodation for many months, the store revoked it for no reason. And the store did not ensure that a chair was in Stack’s work area, at one point telling her that she had to haul a chair from the furniture department every day, which was of course hard for her to do given her disability. Finally, the store transferred Stack from the fitting room to a greeter position, which did not comply with her restrictions on standing.

To add insult to injury, Bowman added, a co-worker harassed Stack by calling her names like “cripple” and “chemo brain,” imitated her limp, and removed or hid the chair the employee needed in her work area. Stack complained repeatedly, but the store took no action to stop the co-worker’s harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, which can include denying reasonable accommodations to disabled employees and subjecting disabled employees to a hostile work environment.

The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-5796, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and was assigned to U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman. The government’s litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Ann Henry and supervised by EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.

“It’s hard to believe a retailer the size of Wal-Mart could not manage to consistently provide such a simple accommodation as a chair,” said John Hendrickson, the regional attorney for EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Telling a disabled employee that she needs to drag a chair across the store every day is no accommodation at all. Employers have to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would be an undue hardship. EEOC is aware of no hardship that required Wal-Mart to suddenly change Stack’s schedule, deny her the use of a chair, and transfer her out of the fitting room where she had performed her job well for years.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Ann Henry commented, “No employee should have to go to work and face mocking and name calling because she had cancer. Employers who know about such vile harassment in their workplace have an obligation to stop it. Wal-Mart did not do that here, and the EEOC will seek to hold the company liable for that violation.

In July 2014, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart alleging that it violated the ADA by firing an intellectually disabled employee at a Rockford Walmart store after it rescinded his workplace accommodation.

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

This press release originally appeared in the EEOC Newsroom. 

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

United Airlines to Pay over $1 Million To Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

In a case that garnered nationwide attention, air transportation giant United Airlines Inc. has agreed to pay more than $1 million and implement changes to settle a federal disability lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seal

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that United’s competitive transfer policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship for the employer. By requiring workers with disabilities to compete for vacant positions for which they were qualified and which they needed in order to continue working, the company’s practice frequently prevented employees with disabilities from continuing employment with United, the EEOC said.

The consent decree settling the suit, signed by Hon. Judge Harry Leinenweber and entered today, requires United to pay $1,000,040 to a small class of former United employees with disabilities and to make changes nationally. United will revise its ADA reassignment policy, train employees with supervisory or human resource responsibilities regarding the policy changes, and provide reports to the EEOC regarding disabled employees who were denied a position as part of the ADA reassignment process.

This resolution concludes a lengthy and complicated lawsuit. Although the EEOC originally filed the lawsuit on June 3, 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Francisco, United successfully moved for a change of venue to the Northern District of Illinois. Bound by an earlier precedent which held that a competitive transfer policy similar to United’s policy did not violate the ADA, the lower court dismissed the EEOC’s case in February 2011.  However, in a decision reviewed by the full court, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the EEOC that EEOC v. Humiston Keeling, 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000) “did not survive” an intervening Supreme Court decision, U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).  The Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal and found that “the ADA does indeed mandate that an employer assign employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to the employer.” The Supreme Court refused United’s subsequent request for review on May 28, 2013. EEOC Appellate Attorney Barbara Sloan handled the appeal and Supreme Court briefing for the agency.

“The appellate court’s decision provided an important clarification regarding an employer’s responsibility under the ADA to provide a reasonable accommodation so qualified employees may lead economically independent lives,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “I am pleased this major decision also served as a springboard for the strong monetary and non-monetary remedies in today’s resolution.”

EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “If a disability prevents an employee from returning to work in his or her current position, an employer must consider reassignment. As the Seventh Circuit’s decision highlights, requiring the employee to compete for positions falls short of the ADA’s requirements. Employers should take note: When all other accommodations fail, consider whether your employee can fill a vacant position for which he or she is qualified.”

EEOC San Francisco Acting District Director Michael Connolly noted, “We commend United for agreeing to make these important companywide changes that will enable employees with disabilities to stay employed at jobs they are qualified to do, as was intended under the ADA’s protections.”

According to the company website, United Airlines has almost 84,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world. The air carrier has the world’s most comprehensive route network, including U.S. mainland hubs in Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York / Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and operates an average of nearly 5,000 flights a day to 373 airports across six continents.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

U.S. Supreme Court: Request for Religious Accommodation Not Necessary to Trigger Discrimination Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court decided the widely publicized case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Abercrombie & Fitch (Abercrombie), in which a Muslim female applicant who wore a headscarf was denied employment with Abercrombie based on the company’s dress code policy. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, U.S. Supreme Court, No.14-86 (June 1, 2015).

Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, applied for employment with Abercrombie. She came to the interview wearing a headscarf. The assistant store manager rated Elauf as qualified for the position, but expressed concern to her superiors that Elauf’s headscarf would violate Abercrombie’s Look Policy, which prohibits the wearing of “caps.” The term “caps” is not defined in the policy. The assistant manager also informed her superiors that she believed Elauf’s headscarf was worn pursuant to her religion. The district manager directed that Elauf be denied employment, because the headscarf would violate the Look Policy, just as any other headgear would, whether worn for religious reasons or not.

The EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie. The district court entered judgment in favor of Elauf, and a trial on damages resulted in a $20,000 award to Elauf. Abercrombie appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which reversed the district court and entered summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie. Elauf appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to deny employment to an applicant because the employer desires to avoid extending reasonable accommodation based on the applicant’s religious beliefs. In this case, Abercrombie argued that this prohibition applies only when the applicant requests a religious accommodation or otherwise notifies the employer of the need for an accommodation. In this case, Elauf did not at any time make a request for reasonable accommodation, and therefore, argued Abercrombie, she cannot prove that Abercrombie had knowledge of the need for accommodation, which should be a prerequisite to proving religious discrimination.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that an applicant or employee need not necessarily show that the employer had actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation, only that the need for an accommodation was a “motivating factor” in the employment decision. The Court drew a distinction between the statutory language of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s accommodation provisions, which discusses an employer’s obligations with respect to “known physical or mental limitations” (emphasis added), and with the language of Title VII’s religious accommodation provision, which is silent on the knowledge requirement. According to the Court, the rule for a failure to accommodate claim under Title VII’s religious discrimination provision is “straightforward”: an employer may not consider an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, as a factor in employment decisions. The Court’s opinion offers an example of an employer who assumes that an orthodox Jew who applies for employment will need Saturdays off for the Sabbath. If the employer acts on this assumption and denies the applicant employment because of it, Title VII would be violated, regardless of whether the applicant ever make a request for Saturdays off or otherwise stated a request for accommodation.

While the Court noted that an employee’s request for religious accommodation may make it easier to prove it was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, it is not a necessary component to the claim. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision awarding summary judgment to Abercrombie, despite the fact that Elauf never made a request for an accommodation.

Speculation About Accommodation May Be Enough

This decision has potentially far reaching effects. The Supreme Court has made clear that an individual need not use specific words or terminology relating to the need for religious accommodation, or even make a request at all, in order for liability for failure to accommodate to arise. Whether the need for accommodation is actually known, or merely speculated, assumed, or otherwise factored into an adverse employment decision, liability can arise — even if the need has not been expressed or substantiated at the time of the employment decision.

ARTICLE BY Julie Furer Stahr of Schiff Hardin LLP
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP