Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In addition, Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and observances.

On October 6, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum for all executive departments and agencies concerning federal law protections for religious liberty. The memorandum guides all U.S. administrative agencies and executive departments in the execution of federal law.

In order to uphold the foundational principle of religious liberty, the memorandum states that “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and religious practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity, including employment, contracting, and programming.” The memorandum then set out 20 broad principles of religious liberty to guide administrative agencies and executive departments in implementing this objective. Some of these principles discuss religion in the workplace.

If You Experienced Discrimination at Work, Reach Out to Us

To learn more about our employment discrimination law practice in Texas, click here Employment Discrimination Law Practice.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits Discrimination Based on Religion

The sixteenth principle in the memorandum states that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits covered employers from discriminating against an employee because of his/her religion. This prohibition is found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). A private employer must have 15 or more employees in order to be covered under Title VII.

Title VII defines religion broadly to include all aspects of religious observance, religious practice, and belief. The seventeenth principle in the Attorney General’s memorandum states that an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance, religious practice, or belief unless to do so would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business.

For example, according to the memorandum, an employer that is covered under Title VII must adjust employee work schedules if any employees desire to observe the Sabbath, religious holidays, or other religious observances, unless doing so would create an undue hardship on the employer’s business. The employer must establish any undue hardship with specificity; general assumptions are insufficient.

EEOC Wins Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Employer for Constructive Termination

The Fourth Circuit case EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., which was discussed in a previous blog dated September 12, 2017, is a religious accommodation case under Title VII. To read that blog about an employer’s liability for failing to accommodate an employee’s core religious beliefs, click here EEOC Wins Religious Discrimination Lawsuit.

Guidelines on Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace in 1997 Spelled Out Employee Freedoms

President Clinton issued Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace in 1997. According to the Attorney General’s memorandum, these Guidelines explained that federal employees could keep religious materials on their private desks and read them during breaks. They could discuss their religious views with other employees, subject to the general limitations for employee expression. They could display religious messages on clothing or wear religious medallions. They could also invite others to attend worship services at their places of worship, unless such speech becomes excessive or harassing. The eighteenth principle in the memorandum states that President Clinton’s Guidelines can be useful to private employers in determining the reasonable accommodation of the religious observances and religious practice of employees.

Religious Employers Exempted from Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

Special legal rules apply to religious employers. Qualifying religious organizations are exempted from Title VII’s prohibition on religious discrimination in the workplace. Under the special protections granted to them, religious organizations, according to the memorandum, may employ only persons who share the same religious beliefs, faith, or code of conduct.

According to the Attorney General’s memorandum, for example, a Lutheran secondary school can choose to employ only practicing Lutherans, only practicing Christians, or only those individuals who adhere to a code of conduct consistent with the precepts of the Lutheran community sponsoring the school. The nineteenth principle of the memorandum states the special protections that apply to religious organizations. However, some critics are concerned that religious employers could potentially rely on the broad language in the memorandum to discriminate illegally against employees.

The Attorney General’s memorandum, for the most part, relies on broad and established general principles of religious liberty. The memorandum emphasizes that an employer must accommodate an employee’s religious observance, religious practice, or belief unless to do so would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business. It also reiterates that religious organizations are granted certain special protections and exemptions for some employment practices.

Workplace Discrimination Occurs in Many Different Types of Situations

Perhaps you have suffered from workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation for making a benefits claim, or some other adverse action by your employer. If so, please click here Contact an Employment Law Attorney at Kilgore & Kilgore for a free evaluation of the facts of your case.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In addition, Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and observances.

In a religious accommodation case under Title VII, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a judgment for $150,000 in compensatory damages and over $436,000 in front pay, back pay, and lost benefits awarded to a former coal miner in West Virginia. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the evidence showed that the miner’s employer failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and was guilty of a constructive discharge of the employee, in violation of Title VII. The opinion was issued on June 12, 2017, in the case EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc.

The EEOC May Bring a Lawsuit against an Employer

The EEOC sued Consol Energy on behalf of coal miner Beverly Butcher, a former Consol employee. Occasionally, the EEOC itself will bring a lawsuit on behalf of an aggrieved employee if it believes it has a strong case against the employer. Typically, however, the EEOC issues a right to sue letter to the employee (known as the claimant) that allows the claimant himself/herself to bring a lawsuit in court. If you have received a right to sue letter from the EEOC, contact an employment law lawyer at Kilgore & Kilgore to learn the best way to proceed with your case. Please click here to reach out to us Contact an Employment Law Lawyer.

Hand Scanner Used by Employer to Record Work Hours and Attendance of Employees

In 2012, Consol Energy installed a biometric hand scanner at the West Virginia coal mine where Butcher had worked for nearly 40 years. Consol implemented this hand scanner system in order to improve its ability to monitor employee attendance and work hours. Each worker was required to scan his/her right hand when checking in or out of a work shift. The shape of each worker’s hand was linked to that worker’s personnel number.

Employee’s Religious Beliefs Prevented His Use of the Hand Scanner

Butcher is a life-long, devout evangelical Christian, an ordained minister, and an associate pastor. Use of the hand scanner on Butcher would have threatened his core religious commitments. At trial, Butcher testified that he believed that the use of Consol’s hand scanner on either of his hands would conflict with his closely held religious beliefs.

Workplace Discrimination Arose from Accommodations Made to Other Employees with Hand Injuries, But Not to Mr. Butcher

While Consol resisted accommodating Butcher’s religious beliefs, this same employer was making accommodations for two other employees who had hand injuries that prohibited their use of the hand scanner. Consol permitted those two employees to enter their personnel numbers on a keypad. Consol refused to make the same accommodation for Butcher. This employer decided that Butcher would be required to scan his left hand. The manufacturer of the hand scanner had provided Consol with a letter in which it offered its own religious explanation that scanning Butcher’s left hand, as opposed to his right hand, would not conflict with his religious beliefs. Consol made it clear to Butcher that he would be required to scan his left hand or be subject to disciplinary action. In response, Butcher tendered his retirement from the company.

The EEOC Prevailed at Trial against Consol

The jury found that all three elements of a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reasonable accommodation claim were satisfied by the evidence. First, Butcher had sincere religious beliefs that conflicted with Consol’s required use of the hand scanner. Second, Butcher informed Consol of this conflict. Third, Consol engaged in a constructive discharge of Butcher for his refusal to comply with its directions. In affirming the denial of Consol’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Fourth Circuit found that the evidence at trial fully supported the jury’s verdict in favor of Butcher.

Appellate Court Ruled in Plaintiff’s Favor

On appeal, Consol continued to rely on the letter from the manufacturer of the hand scanner to argue that the mark he didn’t want is associated with only the right, not the left hand. Thus, Consol was convinced that Butcher’s religious beliefs, though sincere, were mistaken. However, the Fourth Circuit explained in its opinion that it is not “Consol’s place as an employer, nor ours as a court, to question the correctness or even the plausibility of Butcher’s religious understandings.” The court stated that all that matters for satisfying the first element of a reasonable accommodation claim is that Butcher’s religious beliefs are sincerely held and conflict with Consol’s employment requirement.

Constructive Discharge is a Term Used When an Employee Is Forced to Resign Because of Intolerable Working Conditions

The Fourth Circuit also found that there was sufficient evidence at trial to show Butcher’s constructive discharge. A constructive discharge occurs when an employee is subjected to circumstances that are so intolerable that a reasonable person would resign. The appellate court determined that there was substantial evidence that Butcher was put in an intolerable position when Consol refused to accommodate his religious objection to the hand scanner.

Workplace Discrimination Occurs in Many Different Types of Situations

Perhaps you have suffered from a workplace discrimination, such as a wrongful termination, retaliation for making a benefits claim, or some other adverse action by your employer. If so, please click here Contact an Employment Law Attorney at Kilgore & Kilgore for a free evaluation of the facts of your case.

Misconduct by employers gives rise to many employment claims resulting from unlawful discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Two recent cases in Texas courts discussed below provide examples of employment claims involving discrimination by employers in Texas. Do you have a discrimination claim against an employer? The mere belief of an employee that he or she suffered discrimination or retaliation is not legally sufficient to bring a claim. Employees bringing claims against employers must produce direct or circumstantial evidence to prove their claims.

Kilgore & Kilgore has Experience with Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

If you think you have been discriminated against by your employer because of your sex, age, race, religion, disability, national origin, or another illegal reason, click here to connect with an employment lawyer at our firm for a free review of the facts of your situation Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.

Direct or Circumstantial Evidence of Discrimination or Retaliation

An example of direct evidence of discrimination would be an oral or written communication in which an employer states that an adverse employment action has been taken against an employee because of the employee’s sex, age, race, religion, disability, national origin, or membership in a protected class. Usually, it is difficult for an employee to produce this kind of smoking gun direct evidence in today’s workplace where discrimination is quite subtle.

In most cases, an employee must rely on circumstantial evidence to prove his or her claim of discrimination. An example of circumstantial evidence of discrimination would include a comparison of employees who are similarly situated in terms of experience, qualifications, and performance, but who are treated differently. This might be due to that employee’s membership in a protected class. An employer’s conduct towards employees in the same protected class could be another example of circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

Protected Class Definition in the Context of Discrimination Law

In U. S. federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic. For example, the characteristics of race are protected by federal law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Retaliation Claims

For a retaliation claim, close temporal proximity between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse action is an example of circumstantial evidence of unlawful retaliation. Many courts have rules that define temporal proximity as a short time interval between a protected activity and an adverse action. This standard includes the word close as in close in time meaning within a reasonable timeframe.

An accumulation of circumstantial evidence can give rise to an inference of discrimination or unlawful retaliation. Typically, an employer will try to offer legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for its adverse action against an employee. Ultimately, the employee, through his or her evidence, must show that the employer’s proffered reasons are merely pretext for actual discrimination or retaliation.

To Start Discrimination Claim File a Complaint with the TWC or EEOC

Before an employee can file a lawsuit for employment discrimination or retaliation in Texas, he or she must file a complaint of discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Such complaints must be filed in a timely manner, as there are restrictions with each agency. For information about these time restrictions, click here EEOC Guidelines Page.

Sex Discrimination Plaintiff Prevails in El Paso

Unfortunately, many women experience sex discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. In a case in El Paso County District Court, an operations manager brought an action against the county after she was terminated. The case was Miranda v. El Paso County. Prior to her termination, she (the plaintiff) allegedly experienced sexual harassment by her supervisor. When the plaintiff learned that her supervisor was going to be promoted, she objected to the supervisor of her boss, pursued a grievance, and was terminated. The plaintiff claimed that she was terminated because of sex discrimination and retaliation. However, the county claimed that the plaintiff was terminated because of insubordination.

At trial earlier this year, the court awarded the plaintiff $203,000 in back pay. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation. She was awarded $750,000 for past and future emotional distress. This award was reduced to $300,000 under Texas law, since caps apply to such claims.

Jury Awarded Damages to Age Discrimination Plaintiff

If you are 40 years of age or older, you may be protected by state and federal age discrimination laws. In a recent case, a maintenance assistant for the Texas Department of Transportation brought an action in El Paso County District Court for age discrimination. He was terminated at age 47. The case was Flores v. Texas Department of Transportation. The state argued that he (the plaintiff) was fired due to his policy violations regarding a truck and for poor performance. The plaintiff alleged that at a meeting of district engineers there was a discussion that the workforce for the department was getting too old. The plaintiff also claimed that other workers over 40 were subject to discipline, transfer, forced retirement, or termination. He alleged that these actions occurred around the time of his own termination and that he was replaced by younger workers.

At trial earlier this year, the plaintiff sought back pay, front pay, past employment benefits, and compensatory damages. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on his age discrimination claim and awarded him damages of over $254,000.

Our Employment Attorneys May be Able to Help You with a Discrimination or Retaliation Claim

The attorneys at our firm had no involvement in either of the discrimination cases discussed above. All employment law cases are unique. If you would like to discuss the facts of your particular situation with an employment lawyer, we offer a free evaluation of the facts of your situation so you can understand it from a legal perspective. Click here to get started Contact Kilgore & Kilgore.