EEOC Wins Jury Verdict in Religious Discrimination Case Where Employees Were Denied a Requested Day Off to Attend a Church Convention.
On October 23, 2007, the EEOC announced a favorable jury verdict of $756,000 in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought in Arkansas federal court against AT&T Inc. on behalf of two male customer service technicians who were suspended and fired for attending a Jehovah’s Witnesses Convention. “The jury . . . awarded the two former employees, Jose Gonzalez and Glenn Owen (brothers-in-law), $296,000 in back pay and $460,000 in compensatory damages under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. During the four-day trial, the jury heard evidence that both men had submitted written requests to their manager in January 2005 for one day of leave to attend a religious observance that was scheduled for Friday, July 15, to Sunday, July 17, 2005. Both men testified that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that required them to attend the convention each year. Both men had attended the convention every year throughout their employment with AT&T -- Gonzalez worked at the company for more than eight years and Owen was employed there for nearly six years.”
Title VII requires -- at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) -- that an employer, short of "undue hardship," make "reasonable accommodations" to the religious needs of its employees. In particular, for purposes of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion: “The term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”
Title VII’s “undue hardship” test, however, has been given a different meaning by the Supreme Court than the “undue hardship” test contained in the ADA. In Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), the Supreme Court held that an employer attempted to reasonably accommodate the religious objections of an employee to working on his Sabbath by permitting him to find a replacement and switch shifts. However, the Court held that the employer was not required to violate the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreement by giving the religious employee the preference of shift assignments over more senior employees because doing so would constitute an undue hardship.
“We agree that neither a collective bargaining contract nor a seniority system may be employed to violate the statute, but we do not believe that the duty to accommodate requires TWA to take steps inconsistent with the otherwise valid agreement. Collective bargaining, aimed at effecting workable and enforceable agreements between management and labor, lies at the core of our national labor policy, and seniority provisions are universally included in these contracts. . . . TWA would have had to adopt the latter in order to assure Hardison and others like him of getting the days off necessary for strict observance of their religion, but it could have done so only at the expense of others who had strong, but perhaps nonreligious, reasons for not working on weekends. There were no volunteers to relieve Hardison on Saturdays, and to give Hardison Saturdays off, TWA would have had to deprive another employee of his shift preference at least in part because he did not adhere to a religion that observed the Saturday Sabbath.”
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the religious employee could be given a four-day instead of a five-day shift because that would have left the employer short-handed one day each week: “To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship. Like abandonment of the seniority system, to require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their religion.”
The full press release is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-23-07.html.
EEOC Settles Racial Harassment Suit Involving Hangman’s Nooses
On October 25, 2007, the EEOC announced that it had settled a discrimination lawsuit for $290,000 and obtained “significant injunctive relief against Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. (H & P) on behalf of African American men who were subjected to a racially hostile work environment on an oil rig. H & P is an energy oriented company engaged in contract drilling primarily in the United States, South America, and Africa. The racial harassment in the case including hangman’s nooses displayed on Rig 108, derogatory racial language, and race-based name calling, all of which was directed at black employees. In addition to the nearly $300,000 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the seven class members, the two-year consent decree (filed in Birmingham, Alabama) settling the case (EEOC v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., Case No. 3:05-CV-691) contains the following injunctive relief:
- Enjoins H & P from engaging in racial harassment or retaliation;
- Requires that H & P conduct anti-discrimination training and post a notice about the settlement;
- Requires that H& P redistribute to the workforce its policies prohibiting racial harassment; and
- Requires reporting certain complaints of harassment or retaliation to the EEOC for monitoring.
A full copy of the press release can be reviewed at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-25-07.html.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.
