Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with religious discrimination, (Jan 17, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent religious discrimination decisions of interest to the labor and employment community.

S.D. Cal.: Religious accommodation request did not oppose unlawful employment practice. An employee alleged she was fired because her religious beliefs conflicted with her employer’s Transgender, Non-Binary Inclusion Policy. She argued that the policy violated her Christian beliefs and requested a religious accommodation to avoid these requirements. When pressed as to why she needed an accommodation, she stated that she was willing to use gender-neutral pronouns and show respect. She was subsequently terminated and filed a lawsuit alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation under Title VII, and discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), among other things. The employer moved to dismiss, arguing there was no actual conflict between the employee’s religious beliefs and its policy. The court found the employee failed to plausibly allege she had a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with its policy. It also ruled that by requesting a religious accommodation, the employee did not oppose any unlawful employment practice, and thus she was not engaged in a protected activity for purposes of her retaliation claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend (Hasia-Welch v. Disability Rights California, No. 3:24-cv-00810-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2024)).

D. Haw.: Fact dispute over employee’s religious beliefs precluded summary judgment. Citing her Christian beliefs, an airline employee sought a religious exemption from the company’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. The airline denied her request, asserting undue hardship and safety concerns, and subsequently fired her for noncompliance with the policy. The employee sued, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Hawaii state law, and moved for partial summary judgment to establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the sincerity of her religious beliefs and whether they conflicted with the company’s vaccination policy (Victorino v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00527-HG-WRP (D. Haw. Dec. 12, 2024)).

S.D. Ind.: Employee failed to submit religious accommodation request. An executive sales representative for a pharmaceutical company was terminated for refusing to comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The employee had requested a medical accommodation based on a past adverse reaction to a flu vaccine, which she claimed resulted in Guillain-Barre Syndrome and also made a religious accommodation request based on her Christian Baptist beliefs. When the company requested additional information as to her adverse flu vaccine reaction, she failed to comply. She also never submitted a religious accommodation request. After she was terminated, she sued the company alleging that its denial of her medical and religious accommodation requests violated the ADA, Title VII, and the ADEA. The company moved for summary judgment, asserting that the employee did not demonstrate a qualified disability under the ADA, she was not replaced by an individual younger than her, and she did not properly request a religious accommodation under Title VII. The court granted the motion, finding that the employee failed to establish that she was a qualified individual with a disability. Further, because she never submitted a religious accommodation request or informed anyone of her specific religious beliefs, her religious accommodation claim also failed. The ADEA claim was also dismissed (Swanson v. Lilly USA, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00831-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Nov. 15, 2024)).

S.D.N.Y.: Hasidic employee fired because of time theft, not discrimination. An Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic woman, hired by a medical center, expressed a need for “flexibility, remote work, and observance of Jewish holidays.” She was “provided flexibility as to when she was required to work on site,” which was once a week. However, discrepancies in her logged work hours led to an investigation and her eventual termination. She sued the medical center, medical system, and a manager alleging race, religious, and national origin discrimination under Title VII, among other things. The medical center defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employee’s claims were time-barred, that she failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination, and that her Section 1981 claims were identical to those litigated before the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR). The court found the employee failed to provide evidence of discrimination or retaliation, noting that the suspension and termination were based on substantiated time theft rather than discriminatory motives. Additionally, the employee’s Section 1981 claims were barred by collateral estoppel due to the NYSDHR’s previous findings of no probable cause (Wieder v. Greater Hudson Valley System, No. 7:21-cv-08026-NSR-VR (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2024)).

W.D. Wash.: Employee’s COVID-19 vaccination accommodation would have caused undue hardship. In September 2021, the Port of Seattle imposed a mandatory vaccination requirement for its employees. A Senior Access Controller, whose job required her to interact closely with others while controlling, monitoring, and restricting access to secured portions of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, sought a religious exemption from the requirement. The Port determined that it could not reasonably accommodate her without imposing an undue hardship on its operations. Consequently, she was separated from her employment. The employee sued the Port, alleging failure to accommodate her religious beliefs under Title VII and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination. Granting the Port’s motion for summary judgment, the court found the Port demonstrated that reasonably accommodating the employee would have resulted in undue hardship (Efimoff v. Port of Seattle, No. 2:23-cv-01307-BAT (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2024)).

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Discharge Covid19 Procedure DisabilityDiscrimination