Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—E.D. Mo.: Jewish employee’s misconduct, not complaints over changes to religious accommodations, spurred firing, (Oct 28, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The new requirement that she exhaust her paid vacation leave for religious holidays rather than being allowed to use unpaid leave also “falls far short of the egregious and pervasive abuse required to establish actionable harassment.”

Washington University won’t face trial on a Jewish former employee’s Title VII claims alleging her supervisor created a hostile work environment by harassing her and changing her religious accommodations and then terminated her in retaliation for complaining. Dismissing her claims on summary judgment, a federal court held that most of the supervisor’s alleged conduct was unrelated to her religion, the rescission of the team’s teleworking policy was neutral and an alternative accommodation was granted to allow the employee to observe the Sabbath, and the new requirement that she exhaust paid leave before being allowed to take unpaid leave to celebrate religious holidays was not sufficiently severe. Moreover, it was undisputed that she was terminated due to legitimate performance and misconduct concerns, many of which were raised before the change in her religious accommodations (Buck-Yael v. Washington University, No. 4:23-cv-00492-JAR (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2025)).

The employee began working for Washington University in 2014 as an IT technician. In 2017, she became part of a team that supported the operation and users of newly deployed software.

Time off for religious holidays. During most of her tenure, the university permitted the employee to take unpaid leave on Jewish holidays without first exhausting accrued paid leave. In October 2019, her supervisor learned during HR training that staff should be required to deplete paid leave before using unpaid leave as an accommodation, if appropriate. She then sent an email advising the employee that going forward, she must use any available paid leave before utilizing unpaid leave to cover absences for religious holidays. On October 23, the employee asked if the supervisor was unaware of her arrangement or if it was being rescinded. On November 12, the supervisor explained that there was no standing policy for using unpaid leave for religious holidays and reiterated that the employee must now exhaust paid leave for future time-off requests.

Telework to observe the Sabath. The employee’s team had also historically been permitted to telework one day per week of their choosing, and the employee chose to do so on Fridays so she would be home at sundown to observe the start of the Sabbath. On October 8, her supervisor announced the end of this policy for the whole team. On November 1, the employee asked to work longer days Monday through Thursday and a half day on Fridays to observe the Sabbath, and the supervisor approved this schedule modification.

Disciplinary actions. Meanwhile, it was undisputed that throughout 2019, and prior to these changes in her workplace accommodations, the employee had difficulties working with the supervisor and her peers. On February 12, she received her first written warning after a coworker complained about her uncomfortable behavior during a meeting. Her communication and performance issues continued, and on June 13, she received an unfavorable yearly performance review. In September, the supervisor expressed her desire to terminate the employee with both HR and department leadership, citing examples of her “toxic attitude” and noncompletion of work. However, she was not terminated, and the supervisor continued to document these issues.

Final warning. On November 12, the employee sent an email to thousands of software users referencing an incorrect date for an upcoming server outage. The supervisor issued her a final warning on November 15 which cited the email incident as well as her coworkers’ ongoing complaints.

HR meeting. The employee met with HR on November 27 and disputed the final warning and also complained that she was no longer allowed to take unpaid leave on religious holidays. She also protested her disciplinary actions to her peers, some of whom complained to the supervisor, which prompted the supervisor to warn her not to create an unpleasant working environment.

Final straw. On December 16, a new team member reported that the employee had made him uncomfortable by asking him to provide screenshots of his messages with the supervisor and brought him to a private office to complained that the supervisor was “trying to get rid of her.” The next day, the supervisor and another leader presented the employee with a termination letter which cited the prior formal warnings and her latest “uncomfortable” interactions with the new team member.

Harassment unrelated to religion. Granting the university’s bid for summary judgment on the employee’s hostile work environment (HWE) claim, the court first found that the majority of the alleged harassment was unrelated to her religion. For instance, her supervisor directed her criticism at the whole team during meetings and also cancelled one-on-one meetings with multiple team members. And while the leader may have acted unprofessionally in complaining about the employee to members of the team, this was “no more than interpersonal conflict and not religious animus.” In addition, the supervisor’s removal of weekly telework was a neutral policy change not related to anyone’s religion but out of a desire to facilitate collaboration and increase productivity and efficiency.

Use of paid leave not “severe.” Thus, the only arguable “interference” with the employee’s religious accommodations that could support her HWE claim was the supervisor’s requirement that she exhaust her paid leave to cover religious holiday absences. However, this change did not meaningfully alter the terms and conditions of her employment as she was still excused from work on religious holidays. Though she argued that this modification detrimentally affected her because it decreased the vacation time available to her for non-religious reasons, this undesirable change in her time off allowance was a singular action that “falls far short of the egregious and pervasive abuse required to establish actionable harassment.”

Exhaustion of retaliation claim. The court rejected the university’s contention that she failed to administratively exhaust her retaliation claim since she only alleged in her EEOC charge that she was terminated in “direct violation” of the NLRA as she was fired for “discussions with colleagues in the course of crafting my petition to HR.” Concerted activity protected by the NLRA can also constitute protected Title VII activity, and the record suggested the employee complained to HR regarding the purported “withdrawal” of her religious accommodations in the meeting where she petitioned to remove prior disciplinary warnings. While the charge did not exhaustively describe those communications, that level of detail was not required.

Protected Activity. While the court held that the employee’s November 27 complaint to HR constituted protected Title VII activity, it concluded that her emails with her supervisor about the change in her religious accommodations did not. Though a tone of dissatisfaction could be inferred, she did not “oppose” unlawful discrimination. But even if the emails were also protected activity, her retaliation claim still failed because she could not demonstrate they caused her termination.

Causation. Rather, the record undisputedly established that the university discharged her due to performance and misconduct concerns. The termination letter cited her accumulated disciplinary warnings, including the February written warning about her uncollaborative behavior in team meetings which was issued before any of the alleged protected activity. Her supervisor also expressed that cause existed to seek her termination in September, which also predated any protected activity, and as such “underscores the point that the performance history cited in Plaintiff’s termination letter motivated her termination in combination with subsequent transgressions.” Her final written warning relayed continued concerns, including coworker reports about her condescending approach and an email she sent to thousands of software users that contained a significant error.

The termination letter also pointed to the new team member’s December 16 report of his interactions with the employee as the final straw justifying her termination. The court rejected her contention that this conversation was protected activity, and concluded that it defied the university’s earlier instruction that, though sharing concerns regarding discipline and her HR petition was not prohibited, continuing to cause her coworkers discomfort was. It was undisputed that her supervisor was unaware of her November 27 complaints to HR about the “withdrawal” of her religious accommodations.

No pretext. The employee also failed to create a triable issue as to pretext. Her argument that the warnings were inaccurate could not establish they were motivated by her religion, and her accusation that they were made under “false pretenses” was not supported by the record.

The case is No. 4:23-cv-00492-JAR.

Judge: Ross, J.

Attorneys: Kristen Prinz (Law Offices of Kristen Prinz) for Aviva Buck-Yael. Mollie G Mohan (Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan Jackstadt) for Washington University.

Companies: Washington University

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation Procedure MissouriNews