Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—N.D. Tex.: Muslim worker, twice denied leave for weekly prayer, fails to advance claims, (Jan 22, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

He was terminated shortly after his medical leave had ended, however, allowing his claim for FMLA retaliation to proceed.

A practicing Muslim who was formerly employed by Boeing as a supply chain specialist could not defeat a motion for summary judgment against his Title VII claims for religious discrimination, ruled a federal district court in Texas. Although the employee’s request to attend weekly prayer was accommodated, his manager had denied him leave on two occasions because of important meetings. The court determined that these two occasions were isolated incidents that did not occur frequently enough to sustain a claim for religious discrimination. However, the employee was able to move forward with his claim for FMLA retaliation, as his employment was terminated shortly after his leave came to an end (Hossain v. The Boeing Co., No. 3:23-CV-2494-S (N.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2025)).

In June 2022, the employee transferred from Boeing’s commercial division to another division, joining his manager’s team as a supply chain specialist. Prior to his transfer, the employee informed his new manager that he was a Muslim and would need to attend weekly prayer. The manager accommodated his request to attend prayer on Fridays.

Meetings. At least once, the employee’s manager asked him when his prayer time was. Sometime around October 2022, the manager began asking the employee frequently if he could change his prayer time. The employee told him he could not. The manager would also frequently ask the employee whether he could meet with the employee during his scheduled prayer time. Further, he would frequently schedule meetings right when the employee’s prayer time had ended.

On two occasions, the employee’s requests to attend prayer time were denied because of important meetings.

PIP. Also in October 2022, the manager emailed an HR representative about placing the employee on a performance improvement plan (PIP), detailing multiple concerns he had with the employee’s performance. Later that month, the employee was placed on a 60-day PIP.

He met regularly with his manager to assess his progress. However, when the PIP expired, his manager determined that he had not improved his performance in all required areas, and on January 6, 2023, made the decision to terminate the employee.

FMLA leave. While the manager and HR began working through Boeing’s termination procedures, the employee requested FMLA leave on January 17, immediately pausing preparations for his termination. His leave began on January 30 and ended on March 6. On March 14, when the manager returned from vacation, he fired the employee.

Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit alleging claims for religious discrimination in violation of Title VII and for FMLA retaliation. Boeing moved for summary judgment against all claims.

Hostile work environment. The court first addressed the employee’s claims for religious discrimination, beginning with his claim of a hostile work environment. Here, the court found the employee had failed to establish the fourth element of his claim—that the alleged harassment had affected a term, privilege, or condition of employment.

To support his hostile work environment claim, the employee pointed to his manager: (1) repeatedly asking him when his prayer time was; (2) asking him frequently if he could change those prayer times or meet during those prayer times; (3) setting meetings for right after his prayer time ended; and (4) denying him prayer time on two occasions.

“The first three categories of conduct, while frequent, are annoyances that are not sufficiently severe, physically intimidating, or humiliating enough to support a hostile work environment claim,” said the court. Moreover, the employee failed to point to any evidence that these categories of conduct interfered with his work performance.

As to the fourth category of conduct, the denial of the employee’s prayer time on two occasions was not sufficiently frequent, severe, physically threatening, or humiliating enough to constitute objectively offensive conduct, explained the court. The employee also failed to present any evidence that these denials interfered with his ability to do his work. Accordingly, his hostile work environment claim failed.

Disparate treatment. Turning to the employee’s claim for disparate treatment, the court found that the employee did not proffer any direct evidence of discrimination and had failed to point to any similarly situated non-Muslim employees who were treated more favorably. As such, his claim for disparate treatment also failed.

Failure to accommodate. Regarding the employee’s failure to accommodate claim, the court again determined that he had failed to establish his prima facie case.

First, the employee had not demonstrated that his belief conflicted with a requirement of his employment, observed the court. He was allowed to attend prayer every week, save for two isolated incidents, which were insufficient to meet the employee’s burden.

Second, continued the court, the employee had failed to demonstrate that his failure to comply with an employment requirement resulted in an adverse employment action. Since the employee began working for the manager in June 2022, he regularly attended prayer services almost every Friday up until his termination in March 2023.

Given the almost year-long practice of allowing him to attend prayer service, the decision to terminate the employee did not create an inference that he was fired for attending prayer service. If anything, the evidence reflected that the employee was fired for his alleged deficient performance and not for attending prayer service during work hours, said the court. Thus, his failure to accommodate claim also failed.

FMLA retaliation. Finally, as to the employee’s FMLA retaliation claim, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict in favor of either party. Accordingly, Boeing’s motion for summary judgment against this claim was denied.

The case is No. 3:23-CV-2494.

Judge: Scholer, K.

Attorneys: Wes Dauphinot (Dauphinot Law Firm) for Montasir Hossain. Jana S. Baker (Ogletree Deakins) for The Boeing Co.

Companies: The Boeing Co.

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave Retaliation TexasNews