Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "Religion"

EEOC v. CONSOL Energy, Inc., No. 16-1230 (4th Cir. June 12, 2017)

The Fourth Circuit affirms a jury verdict and back-pay relief of $586,860 in favor of the EEOC, in a Title VII religious accommodation case where the employer stubbornly "belie[ved] that it could rely on its own understanding of scripture to limit the scope of the accommodation it offered" an employee who, because of his Christian faith, refused to use a hand scanner.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86 (U.S. S. Ct. June 1, 2015)

The epic EEOC challenge to Abercrombie & Fitch's "Look Policy" for its retail stores turns another page, as the Supreme Court holds 8-1 that the Tenth Circuit erred in granting judgment as a matter of law to the employer on the agency's religious discrimination case. Seven justices, in an opinion signed by Justice Scalia, hold that there is no "knowledge" requirement for Title VII discrimination claims. Thus, the company's argument that it did not "know" about the applicant's Muslim religious faith - even though she was wearing a headscarf - did not avoid liability. Justice Alito concurs only in the judgment; Justice Thomas dissents.

Davis v. Fort Bend Cty., No. 13-20610 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2014)

The Fifth Circuit addresses a seldom-litigated question under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j): whether plaintiffs in religious reasonable-accommodation cases must prove both that they hold sincere ("bona fide") religious convictions, and that the activities to be accommodated constitute true religious beliefs. The panel splits 2-1, with the majority reversing summary judgment for the employer and holding that even a non-religious observance (here, a community service event for the plaintiff's church) might require accommodation.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 11-5110 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 2013)

Within a week of Abercrombie & Fitch ("A&F") announcing a settlement with the EEOC of two Title VII religious accommodation claims involving hijab-wearing employees in California, the Tenth Circuit orders entry of judgment for the clothing retailer against the EEOC in a similar case arising out of Oklahoma. The 2-1 decision applies a formalistic circuit rule that "the applicant or employee must initially provide the employer with explicit notice of the conflicting religious practice and the need for an accommodation for it." Employees are forewarned that, where workplace accommodations are concerned, courts expect you speak up for your rights. 

Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, No. 12-3820 (7th Cir. July 31, 2013)

The Seventh Circuit sends back for trial this Title VII religious-accommodation case, concerning a Nigerian employee's request for five weeks' leave time to attend his father's funeral overseas. One disputed issue was whether the employee clearly indicated a religious purpose for the voyage, where he said that "if he failed to lead the burial rites, he and his family members would suffer at least spiritual death."

Hamilton v. Southland Christian School, Inc., No. 11-13696 (11th Cir. May 16, 2012)

An employer who fires an employee expressly because she became pregnant before marrying the father obviously violates the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. And it did not help the employer, in this case, that it asserted the "ministerial exception," as recently declared in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132 S.Ct. 694, 706 (2012).

Nassar v. Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr., No. 11-10338 (5th Cir. Mar 8, 2012); Cook v. IPC Int'l Corp., No. 11-2502 (7th Cir. Mar. 8, 2012)

Two appeals reviewing jury trials in Title VII cases came down today. In the first, the plaintiff - a physician - wins two claims at trial (retaliation and constructive discharge, centered on claims of racial discrimination), but loses the latter claim on appeal, necessitating a remand for recalculation of damages. In the second, the plainiff lost her sex discrimination and retaliation trial, but the Seventh Circuit vacates and remands, criticizing the unnecessarily complicated and inaccurate jury verdict and instruction forms.

Walden v. Centers for Disease Control, No. 10-11733 (11th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012)

On a day when we can celebrate a major legal victory for marriage rights - the Ninth Circuit's rejection of California's Proposition 8 - a court on the other side of the country quietly issues a complementary decision, holding that a public employer need not accommodate the anti-gay religious beliefs of a benefits counselor who declares her refusal to assist same-sex couples.

Dediol v. Best Chevrolet Inc., No. 10-30767 (5th Cir. Sept. 12, 2011)

One of the most memorable hostile-work-environment facts encountered in a recent published federal opinion: The manager - who has a history of physically threatening the plaintiff - rips off his shirt at work and tells the employee, "You don't know who you are talking to. See these scars. I was shot and was in jail." The Fifth Circuit reverses summary judgment in an ADEA and Title VII harassment case.

subscribe to this blog's feed subscribe to this blog's feed

tell us about your case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

facebook twitter linked in

our office locations

Outten & Golden LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor  
New York, NY 10017  
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
161 North Clark Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60601  
Phone: 312-809-7010
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions