Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving religious discrimination, (May 22, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

C.D. Cal.: Catholic salesman allegedly not promoted “because he had too many children.” A salesman sued his employer, a medical device company, alleging that he was discriminated against due to his Catholic faith and large family, and retaliated against for raising concerns about promotion denials and commission calculations, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The salesman also alleged that the company failed to prevent the discrimination and retaliation and wrongfully terminated him, and alleged whistleblower retaliation under California Law. He claimed he was twice passed over for promotion to regional manager in 2018 and 2021, despite meeting eligibility criteria, and was told by the company VP that the denial of his second promotion attempt was “because he had too many children.” The salesman was terminated because of an allegedly falsified Salesforce entry and customer complaints. He sued and the employer sought summary judgment, which the court granted in part, dismissing the retaliation claims under the FEHA and California Labor Code, wrongful termination, and failure to timely pay wages claims, finding insufficient evidence of pretext or retaliatory motive. However, the court allowed the FEHA discrimination claim based on the 2021 promotion denial and the failure to prevent discrimination claim to proceed, citing direct evidence of discriminatory animus and the employer’s inadequate response to prior complaints. The request for an extension was denied due to lack of diligence in discovery (Kazdoba v. Zoll Medical Corp., No. 2:24-cv-07980-SB-MAA (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2025)).

D. Haw.: CBA, Railway Labor Act precluded court review of non-accommodation claims. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an airline implemented a mandatory vaccination policy for its employees, including a flight attendant who sought exemption based on her Christian religious beliefs. The airline denied her request, and the flight attendant filed suit, alleging failure to accommodate her religious beliefs under Title VII and Hawaii law. The airline argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review these claims, as they required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) applicable to the flight attendant, and were thus subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which mandates resolution of such disputes through internal processes. The court agreed, finding that the flight attendant’s claims required interpretation of CBA provisions related to seniority, bidding, and scheduling, and were therefore precluded from judicial review. The court granted the airline’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denied the flight attendant's requests for jurisdictional discovery and to amend her complaint, and dismissed the case with prejudice (Brody v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00482-HG-WRP (D. Haw. May 2, 2025)).

D. Minn.: Jury to decide undue hardship and sincerity in bank law enforcement officer’s non-accommodation claim. A federal employee who was working for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis as a law enforcement officer in 2021 when the bank required its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 sought a religious exemption, citing his opposition to vaccines linked to fetal stem cells. The employer granted him a temporary accommodation but revoked it a few months later. When he remained unvaccinated in January 2022, the employer fired him, and he sued under Title VII and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for religious discrimination. The court denied cross-motions for summary judgment by the parties, finding that genuine factual disputes remained. Regarding the Title VII claim, a reasonable jury could go either way on the issues of undue hardship and whether the employee’s objection was based on a sincerely held religious belief. As for the RFRA claim, however, the court granted the bank’s motion because under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent, a federal employee cannot pursue a religious discrimination claim under RFRA (Maki v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, No. 0:22-cv-2887-ECT-JFD (D. Minn. May 21, 2025)).

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge Covid19 PublicEmployees