Employees may have less of a burden in proving discrimination when it comes to issues involving religion.
Employment discrimination can be a complicated topic. Under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law states that it is against the law for an employer to either refuse to hire, to fire or to otherwise discriminate against an individual based on these factors. There are many challenges in proving these types of cases, such as demonstrating that an action was discriminatory or what an employer’s motive was. But when it comes to religious discrimination cases, employees may have an easier time proving motive in some cases.
In 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision regarding the refusal of the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch to hire a Muslim woman who wore a traditional head covering during her interview. The store did not hire her on the basis that her headscarf violated the company “look policy” that prohibited employees from wearing “caps” at work. She was otherwise qualified, and was denied solely on the basis of this policy of employees not wearing “caps.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Muslim woman, alleging that the look policy was discriminatory because it led to denying applications of qualified candidates based on their religious beliefs or practices. Initially, the trial court found that the practice was discriminatory, but the appeals court reversed that decision, declaring that the policy was “neutral” and not discriminatory (in other words, it applied to all candidates and employees equally). The United States Supreme Court disagreed in a ruling that was very favorable to employees who believe that they may have been discriminated against on the basis of their religion.
The Supreme Court found that the law requires that all religious observance and practice be protected, unless an employer can demonstrate that it is unable to reasonable accommodate the observance or practice without undue hardship. This holding is significant because it means that employers have to affirmatively accommodate religious practices, unless doing so would be an undue hardship. The Court also found that an employer does not necessarily have to know that an employee needs accommodation; it is enough that the employer suspects or believes that an accommodation is needed. If the employer discriminates to avoid accommodating a religious practice, then it is irrelevant that he or she did not know for a fact that an accommodation was needed. In the Abercrombie case, if the employer’s motive in denying the Muslim woman’s application was to avoid making an exception to the look policy, then it violated the law.
So what does this mean for employees? Ultimately, it may make it easier to prove a religious discrimination case because a person need not actually request the accommodation. If an employer acts with the motive of avoiding having to accommodate a religious practice, that may be enough even though the employee or potential employee did not make a specific request for accommodation. For example, if a person interviews for a job and the employer believes that the person to be Jewish, the application cannot be denied because he or she does not want to give the candidate Saturdays off for religious reasons. That would be discriminating against the candidate on the basis of religion — even if the applicant never actually said that he is Jewish or would require Saturdays off for the Sabbath.
Employment discrimination cases are very dependent on the specific facts of each case. A skilled employment discrimination attorney can evaluate your case to determine if you have a viable claim for religious or any other type of discrimination that is forbidden under federal law. If you believe that your employer or a potential employer has discriminated against you, contact PLBH at (800) 435-7542 or info@plblaw.com. We have substantial experience handling employment discrimination cases in a variety of contexts, and will fight hard for your right to work free of discrimination based on your race, gender, color, religion or national origin.