Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—C.D. Cal.: Fire captain who refused to fly Pride flag survives motion to dismiss, (May 8, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The employee, a declared “Evangelical Christian with traditional and orthodox beliefs on marriage, family, and sexual behavior and identity,” alleged that the views commonly associated with the Progress Pride Flag conflicted with his sincerely held religious beliefs.

A federal court in California declined to dismiss the Title VII and FEHA failure-to-accommodate religion claims of an L.A. County Fire Department Captain and Evangelical Christian who had requested an exemption from the department’s directive to fly the Progress Pride Flag at department facilities throughout the month of June. Any attempt, said the court, to determine whether the county’s proposed accommodations were reasonable would be premature at this stage, particularly given the absence of a developed factual record regarding the county’s underlying motivations and reasoning for its actions (Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, No. 2:24-cv-04353-JLS-PD (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2025)).

After the County Board of Supervisors passed a motion, in March 2023, directing the CEO to work with all county departments to explore ways the Progress Pride Flag could be flown at county facilities during June, the LGBTQ+ Pride month, the fire department issued EA-231, a memorandum requiring that the flag be flown at its facilities during June and that captains and site supervisors ensure that it is flown throughout the month.

Accommodation request. Alleging that views commonly associated with the Progress Pride Flag conflicted with his sincerely held religious beliefs, and thus that he could not be responsible for raising the flag or ensuring that it was raised and properly flown, the employee requested to be exempt from adhering to EA-231. At an interactive meeting with the employee on June 19, the fire department agreed that, for the remainder of June, he would be assigned to facilities that could not physically accommodate the Progress Pride Flag and would not need to personally raise the flag or ensure its raising. The employee was required to swap shifts, use leave benefit time, or use other options to comply with the accommodation.

Flag removal. On June 21, the employee swapped shifts with a colleague so he could work at Area 17, which did not have enough flag clasps to accommodate the Progress Pride Flag. Before the start of his shift, however, the section chief brought additional clasps to Area 17 and directed lifeguards to raise Progress Pride Flags at each of the three Area 17 sites. When the employee arrived, he removed the flag from all three sites. Later that day, the department revoked his accommodation.

The following day, the employee was ordered to fly the flag as instructed in the memorandum and was told he was being investigated. On June 23, he was removed from his role in the Background Investigation Unit, which, he claimed, resulted in a loss of overtime, income, and prestige. In July, he received a Notice of Intent to Suspend, which he served in November.

Standing exemption. When, in July 2023, the employee requested a standing exemption from compliance with EA-231, to apply in “every” June going forward, he was told he would have to request a religious accommodation each year. Although he again requested a standing exemption in March and April 2024, the department, in May, issued EA 232, which also required captains to ensure that Progress Pride Flags were flown throughout June at facilities that could accommodate them.

During an interactive meeting with the employee on May 31, the department granted him a partial accommodation such that he “would not be personally responsible for raising or lowering the Progress Pride Flag” because his work shift would start after it needed to be raised and end before it needed to be lowered. Suing, the employee argued that both a preliminary and permanent injunction were necessary because the department refused to grant him a standing accommodation for future Pride Months.

Penalized because of. Moving to dismiss his failure-to-accommodate claims, the county argued that he did not allege he was penalized “because of” the conflict between his employment duties and his religious beliefs. Disagreeing, the court pointed out that he alleged his sincerely held religious beliefs precluded him from “affirming in any manner the ideological or philosophical premises espoused by the Progress Pride Flag,” and thus conflicted with his job requirement that he personally raise or ensure the raising of the flag.

He also alleged that because he failed to fly the flag at his worksite and instead lowered it, the county subjected him to an investigation, placed him on unpaid administrative leave, subjected him to hostile personal attacks, removed him from the Background Investigation Unit, and has threatened to subject him to disciplinary action if he fails to comply with EA-232 or any similar directives in the future. These allegations, said the court, were sufficient to support his failure-to-accommodate religion claims.

The county, however, contended that it had a nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s suspension—he lowered the flag in direct violation of policy. While the court found this plausible, it also found plausible the employee’s explanation for his suspension and it declined to say, on this undeveloped record, that the county’s explanation was “so convincing” as to render implausible the employee’s explanation.

Good faith efforts. The county next argued that, even assuming the employee established a prima face case, it made good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate his religious practices. Although the court agreed that the employee alleged the county held several interactive process meetings with him in 2023 and 2024 to devise an accommodation, and ultimately granted a partial religious accommodation for June 2024, he also alleged that the county refused to engage in the interactive process with him between June 22, 2023 and May 23, 2024, ignored his March and April 2024 letters requesting a standing exemption, did not inform him whether he would be granted an accommodation for June 2024 until May 31, 2024, and continues to refuse his request for a standing exemption from compliance with EA-232 and any similar future directives. From these allegations, the court found it plausible to infer the county did not engage in good faith efforts to accommodate the employee, which was sufficient to survive the county’s motion to dismiss.

Furthermore, said the court, to prevail, the county had to show its efforts to accommodate the employee were reasonable. Here, the employee alleged that, by refusing to grant him a standing accommodation and instead requiring him to re-apply for an accommodation each year, the county adopted a “wait-and-see” approach that did not eliminate the conflict between his religious beliefs and employment duties. Because any attempt to determine whether the county’s proposed accommodations were reasonable would be premature at this stage, particularly given the absence of a developed factual record regarding the motivations and reasoning underlying the county’s actions, the court denied its motion to dismiss.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-04353-JLS-PD.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Paul Michael Jonna (LiMandri & Jonna) for Jeffrey Little. Dimitri D. Portnoi (O'Melveny & Myers) for Los Angeles County Fire Department.

Companies: Los Angeles County Fire Department

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination CaliforniaNews