Do you know what to do if an employee comes into your office asking for a shift change or some other workplace accommodation because of a sincerely-held religious belief?
A short lesson from a recent federal-court decision and a few tips after the jump…
The Americans with Disabilities Act explicitly forbids discrimination against those who are actually disabled or “regarded as” disabled. As a NJ court once recognized, “Distinguishing between actual handicaps and perceived handicaps makes no sense.” Indeed, “prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be . . . non-existent.”
Does the same maxim apply to workplace discrimination — a barrage of anti-semitic comments — directed at employee whom the harassers believe is Jewish, but really isn’t?
Is that unlawful?
The answer from a NJ court after the jump…
Over the weekend, I read this story by Laura Hibbard at the Huffington Post about a phony job flyer handed out by two men in red blazers posing as Chick-Fil-A employees [link to video] on the campus of New York University. The phony flyer states:
Remember Chick-Fil-A is a Christian company. We strive to have our values reflected in our employees. Please be prepared to discuss your religion, family history, personal relationships etc. upon interviewing. Chick-Fil-A reserves the right to question, in detail, your sexual relationship history. The Bible and Chick-Fil-A, define a traditional relationship as consisting of a man and woman. Anyone living a life of sin need not apply. The Chick-Fil-A Foundation. God, Family, Tradition.
The flyer and video have since gone viral. However, Chick-Fil-A, which has a stated corporate purpose to “glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us,” responded by posting on the wall of its Facebook Fan page (incidentally, 4,960,921 people “like” Chick-fil-A) that the flyer and video were BS. Given the company’s religious leanings, the comments beneath Chick-Fil-A’s status update are rather polarizing.
When an employee sues his former employer alleging a religiously hostile work environment, he must prove, among other things, that he was subjected to harassment based on his religion and that the harassment was either severe or pervasive.
What do you think? Is the email below from a company General Manager severe enough for ya?
Can I just say something I shouldn’t to you here — he is SUCH A JEW! In a BAD way. He’s what gives Jews a bad name. He’s smarter. He’s better. He’s owed. He will do anything to keep from opening his wallet — right down to not eating!!!! And I am DEAD serious here!!! That’s why he expenses every single thing he can because he won’t pay anything! I have not seen him bring one single thing into this office in all the time he’s been here — period. (that he paid for) IF he does bring something in he expenses it. . .I COULDN’T say to him what I just did to you — that HE is what gives Jews a bad name!!!
Let’s see what a NJ court said, after the jump…
* * *
Note: The original working title for this post was “Yo! A-Yo! Federal courts in Philly and NYC get all catty and stuff”. I mention this not because it’s a recycled New Yorker headline, but because it puts into context the gratuitous shots I take at NY sports teams sprinkled into this post.
Back in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital recognized that an employee may have a tenable claim for discrimination under USERRA even if the person who fired him did not discriminate. That is, if a supervisor’s bias motivates a firing — even if the firing is carried out by someone else who is both squeaky-clean and higher up in the food chain — then the firing is discriminatory. This is known as the “cat’s paw” theory.
Same goes for the MetsSince March, other courts have weighed in. As you know from reading this blog, on June, the Tenth Circuit held that the Staub decision applies to claims of age bias.
And, this month, we get cat’s paw decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. One of ’em is good for employers. The other, not so much. More on these decisions and what they will mean for local businesses after the jump…
* * *
Religious discrimination claims are skyrocketing. A supervisor at a local shoe store didn’t get the memo. Guess how that turned for him…
Continue reading
Your employee wears a head-covering. The employee’s head-covering is part of her religious practice.
You’re not one to interfere with an employee’s religious expressions, but you’re concerned that this head-covering creates a safety risk for both the employee and others. And maybe you run a prison and the head-covering could be used to smuggle in contraband.
After jump, I have some practice tips for you.
Continue reading
Quick! Name three people with dreadlocks.
Easy.
Of the three, how many practice the Rastafarian religion?
How the hell does this relate to employment law..let alone a security job? Find out after the jump…
The Employer Handbook Blog