Articles Posted in Religious Discrimination

A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey underscores the importance of disclosing potential witnesses to your opposing party during the discovery process of a lawsuit.

The case was filed by Matthew Webster, an individual whom Dollar General hired to be its store manager in a new location in Sicklerville, New Jersey. Mr. Webster is a Seventh Day Adventist. He asked Dollar General to allow him not to work on Saturday because his religious beliefs prevent him from doing so. The employer denied his request claiming it would have imposed an undue burden on its ability to operate the Sicklerville store. Among other things, Dollar General contends that doing so would leave the store without sufficient and capable leadership on the “busiest sales day” of the week and would require other key personnel to work longer and more frequent shifts.

Ultimately, Dollar General fired Mr. Webster because he would not work on Saturdays. Mr. Webster sued, alleging Dollar General and two of its employees, Bob Miller and Vince Triboletti, denied him a reasonable accommodation for his religious beliefs and otherwise discriminated against him because of his religion in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer cannot refuse to hire a job candidate because she needs a reasonable accommodation for her religious practice even if the prospective employee did not request an accommodation.

The decision was made under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law. Among other things, Title VII prohibits discrimination based on religion. For example, it prohibits employers from refusing to hire or from firing an employee because of his or her “religious observance and practice.” It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees for their religious practices, observances and beliefs.

The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., involves Samantha Elauf, an individual who applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Ms. Elauf is a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf. After interviewing Ms. Elauf, Abercrombie determined that she was qualified for the job. However, it did not offer her a position because the company’s “Look Policy” that prohibits employees from wearing “caps” because the company considers them to be too informal for its image. Abercrombie made this decision even though it realized Ms. Elauf’s probably wore her headscarf because of a religious belief.

New Jersey has many well-known laws that protect employees. Perhaps the two best know are the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), an anti-discrimination law, and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), a whistleblower law. The state has many other employment laws as well.

One much less known law is the Worker Freedom From Employer Intimidation Act, which went into effect in 2006. It protects employees against certain forms of religious and political intimidation at work. Specifically, it prohibits companies from requiring employees to attend meetings or to participate in communications regarding the employer’s opinion about religious or political issues. The law defines “political matters” to include affiliation with a political party, as well as decisions to join, not join, or participate in “any lawful political, social, or community organization or activity.”

Despite that prohibition, the act allows employers to invite employees to voluntarily attend employer-sponsored meetings and to provide other religious and political communications to their employees as long as make it clear the employees will not be penalized if they refuse to attend the meetings or accept the communications.

In a ground-breaking employment law decision, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently ruled that an employee can sue for a hostile work environment if his employer harasses him based on a mistaken belief that he belongs to a legally-protected group. Specifically, the court allowed an employee to proceed with his claim that his supervisors harassed him because they mistakenly believed he is Jewish, even though he is not.

Mr. Cowher’s Supervisors Harassed Him Because They Thought He Was Jewish

Myron Cowher worked as a truck driver for Carson & Roberts for approximately two years. His supervisors made anti-Semitic slurs to him on a daily basis. For example, they referred to him as “Jew Bag,” “Jew Bastard,” “you Hebrew,” “bagel meister,” “Jew burger” and “f—ing Hebrew.” They even told him “[i]f you were a German, we would burn you in the oven.” Mr. Cowher’s supervisors apparently made these comments because they thought he was Jewish.

Yesterday, a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruled that ministerial employees of religious groups cannot bring employment discrimination claims against the religious groups for which they work. It ruled that those claims would violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The case involved Cheryl Perich, a teacher for the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School. Ms. Perich took time off because she had a disability, narcolepsy. When she tried to return to work, the Church fired her. The Church specifically stated that Ms. Perich’s threat to bring a discrimination lawsuit against it was one of the reasons it fired her.

Ms. Perich then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She claimed the Church had wrongfully terminated her employment, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing her because she has a disability, and in retaliation for her threat to bring a disability discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC eventually filed a lawsuit against the Church, alleging it fired Ms. Perich in violation of the ADA.

The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment requires a ministerial exception to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Specifically, it held that “requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so . . . interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” It concluded this would violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because it would be a government interference with an internal church decision that impacts the church’s faith and mission. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Perich cannot proceed with her lawsuit.

The Court did not define who is a “minister” protected by this exception. However, it found Ms. Perich was a “minister” even though she was a teacher. It based its conclusion on facts including, among other factors, that (1) the Church commissioner her as a minister, (2) she had substantial religious training and had to pass an oral examination before she could be commissioned as a minister, (3) she held herself out as a minister and received a special housing allowance and tax benefits as a result, (4) she was assigned to perform her job “according to the Word of God,” (5) her job duties required her to teach the “Word of God” and to lead her students in prayer three times a day, and (6) twice a year she lead a school-wide chapel service.

The Supreme Court noted that it was not deciding whether the ministerial exception bars other types of lawsuits against religious groups, such as lawsuits for breach of employment contracts or personal injury claims against religious employers.

Continue reading

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to allow employees to observe their sincerely held religious practices and observances, unless the company cannot accommodate the employee without causing an undue hardship to its business. Last month, New Jersey’s Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s decision which had dismissed a religious discrimination lawsuit in which the employee, Gabriel Sepulveda, claimed his employer failed to reasonably accommodate his belief that Sunday should be a day of rest.

Mr. Sepulveda is a born-again Christian. When Borne Holding Co. suddenly required its employees to work on Sundays, Mr. Sepulveda refused to do so because working on Sunday conflicts with his religious beliefs. Borne fired him as a result. It did so without ever engaging in the required “interactive process,” meaning no one at the company spoke to Mr. Sepulveda to determine whether there was another way to accommodate his religious belief, such as by having him work overtime on weekdays or Saturdays instead of Sundays.

Prior to the appeal, the trial court dismissed Mr. Sepulveda’s case because it found his religious belief was not “sincerely held.” It relied on the fact that after Borne fired him, Mr. Sepulveda worked at two other companies where he worked on Sunday evenings. However, Mr. Sepulveda explained that since his Sabbath ended at sundown, those jobs did not conflict with his religious beliefs. He also claimed that he had to accept those jobs because he was desperate to find work.

In an unpublished opinion, Sepulveda v. Borne Holding Co., Inc., the Appellate Division found the trial court should not have dismissed Mr. Sepulveda’s case. Rather, the Court concluded that a jury should decide whether Mr. Sepulveda had a “sincere” religious belief that prohibited him from working on Sundays. Accordingly, it sent Mr. Sepulveda’s case back to the trial court to give him a chance to try to prove his case.

Continue reading

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently upheld a jury verdict which found Avaya, Inc. liable for retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The case is LaFranco v. Avaya, Inc. It involves an employee who responded to his supervisor’s anti-Semitic statement by emphatically indicating that he is Jewish. In an unpublished opinion, the appellate court found the tone and context of Mr. LaFranco’s response indicated he was offended by the statement. In addition, Mr. LaFranco reasonably believed the comment was religious discrimination. Accordingly, his response was a legally protected objection to unlawful discrimination.

Mr. LaFranco worked as a salesperson for Avaya, a telecommunications company, for more than 12 years. He frequently exceeded his sales quotas and received large commissions. Prior to 2002, all of his performance reviews were positive.

In August 2001, Mr. LaFranco reported to his boss, Patrick Iraca, that he had been improperly denied $10,000 in commissions. Mr. LaFranco subsequently reminded Mr. Iraca of the issue, and suggested that Mr. Iraca should discuss it with his boss. In response, Mr. Iraca asked, in a disgusted voice, “What are you, a Jew?”