Search results for: biometric class action lawsuits

Explosion, Fire, Forest, NatureBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

 Seyfarth Synopsis: On an annual basis the American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) publishes its “Judicial Hellholes Report.” The Report focuses on litigation issues in state court systems and challenges for corporate defendants in the fair and unbiased administration of justice. The ATRA recently published its 2021-2022 Report and California is identified as the most disadvantageous jurisdiction in the country for corporate defendants – a copy is here and the executive summary is here.

The Judicial Hellholes Report is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action litigation because it identifies jurisdictions that are generally unfavorable to defendants. The Report defines a “judicial hellhole” as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally to the disadvantage of defendants. The Report is a “must read” for anyone litigating class actions and making decisions about venue strategy.

The 2021 Hellholes

In its recently released annual report, the ATRA identified 8 jurisdictions on its 2021 hellholes list – which, in order, include: (1) California (with the plaintiffs’ bar taking advantage of unique California laws like the Private Attorney General Act); (2) New York City (particularly regarding Americans With Disabilities Act accessibility claims and an activist attorney general battling climate change with energy companies), (3) Georgia; (4) Philadelphia, which fell from the number 1 spot last year (especially in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania), (5) Illinois (especially Cook, St. Clair, and Madison counties and regarding asbestos litigation and Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act class actions), (6) Louisiana (including deceptive lawsuit advertising practices and coastal litigation), (7) St. Louis, Missouri, and (8) South Carolina (particularly in asbestos litigation).

According to the ATRA’s analysis, these venues are less than optimal for corporate defendants and often attract plaintiffs’ attorneys, particularly for the filing of class action lawsuits. Therefore, corporate counsel should take particular care if they encounter a class action lawsuit filed in one of these venues.

The 2022 “Watch List”

The ATRA also included 5 jurisdictions on its “watch list,” including Florida (the ATRA noted that Florida has been making strides to improve its liability climate, however, the trial bar is still able to capitalize on liberal judges and rulings in this jurisdiction), Colorado, Texas (a newcomer to the list, added because of its prohibition on introducing evidence about different products and dissimilar accidents), Maryland (due to unstable medical malpractice climate and backlog of asbestos lawsuits), and Minnesota (dropping from the Hellholes list for the first time in three years, mostly due to COVID-19 inactivity rather than any reforms).

In addition, the ATRA recognized that several Courts made significant positive improvements this year, and 20 states created laws protecting against meritless claims brought in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Implications For Employers

The Judicial Hellholes Report dovetails with the experience of employers in high-stakes workplace class actions, as California, New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, and South Carolina are among the leading states where Plaintiffs’ lawyers file employment discrimination and wage & hour class actions. Many of these jurisdictions are also becoming a hotbed for privacy and accessibility-related lawsuits. These jurisdictions are linked by class certification standards that are more plaintiff-friendly and by generous damages recovery possibilities under state laws.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seyfarth Synopsis: On an annual basis the American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) publishes its “Judicial Hellholes Report.” The Report focuses on litigation issues in state court systems and challenges for corporate defendants in the fair and unbiased administration of justice. The ATRA’s 2020-2021 Report was recently published – a copy is here and the executive summary is here.

The Judicial Hellholes Report is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action litigation because it identifies jurisdictions that are generally disadvantageous to defendants. The Report defines a “judicial hellhole” as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally to the disadvantage of defendants. The Report is a “must read” for anyone litigating class actions and making decisions about venue strategy.

The 2020 Hellholes

In its recently released annual report, the ATRA identified 9 jurisdictions on its 2020 hellholes list – which, in order, include: (1) Philadelphia (especially in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas regarding product liability mass tort cases and lawsuits targeting medications and medical devices), (2) New York City (particularly regarding Americans With Disabilities Act accessibility claims and consumer lawsuits against the food and beverage industry), (3) California (with the plaintiffs’ bar taking advantage of unique California laws like the Private Attorney General Act and the California Consumer Protection Act), (4) South Carolina (with regard to asbestos litigation – a new Hellhole for 2020), (5) Louisiana, (6) Georgia, (7) City of St. Louis, Missouri (with typically large punitive damages awards), (8) Illinois (especially Cook, St. Clair, and Madison counties and regarding asbestos litigation and Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act class actions), and (9) the Twin Cities, Minnesota (particularly the Minnesota Supreme Court with several recent liability-expanding decisions).

According to the ATRA’s analysis, these venues are less than optimal for corporate defendants and often attract plaintiffs’ attorneys, particularly for the filing of class action lawsuits. Therefore, corporate counsel should take particular care if they encounter a class action lawsuit filed in one of these venues.

The 2020 “Watch List”

The ATRA also included 7 jurisdictions on its “watch list,” including Florida (though the ATRA noted that Florida, previously number one on past judicial hellholes lists, has been making strides to improve its liability climate), Oklahoma (a newcomer to the watch list last year, however has been less active in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic), New Jersey, Colorado, Maryland, West Virginia (regarding its Supreme Court of Appeals), and Montana (particularly the Montana Supreme Court).

In addition, the ATRA recognized the all-encompassing impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the legal system in 2020. The ATRA cited the pervasiveness of lawsuits regarding executive orders and legislative protections due to the pandemic and noted that thousands of lawsuits have already been filed.

Implications For Employers

The Judicial Hellholes Report dovetails with the experience of employers in high-stakes workplace class actions, as California, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Louisiana, and Florida are among the leading states where Plaintiffs’ lawyers file employment discrimination and wage & hour class actions. Many of these jurisdictions are also becoming a hotbed for privacy and accessibility-related lawsuits. These jurisdictions are linked by class certification standards that are more plaintiff-friendly and by generous damages recovery possibilities under state laws.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Andrew D. Welker, and Alex S. Oxyer

Seyfarth Synopsis: Every year the American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) publishes its “Judicial Hellholes Report.” The Report focuses on litigation issues in state court systems and challenges for corporate defendants in the fair and unbiased administration of justice. The ATRA’s 2019-2020 Report was recently published; find a copy here and the executive summary here.

The Judicial Hellholes Report is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action litigation because it identifies jurisdictions that are generally disadvantageous to defendants. The Report defines a “judicial hellhole” as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally to the disadvantage of defendants. The Report is a “must read” for anyone litigating class actions and making decisions about venue strategy.

The 2019 Hellholes

In its recently released annual report, the ATRA identified 10 jurisdictions on its 2019 hellholes list – which, in order, include: (1) Philadelphia (especially in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas regarding product liability mass tort cases and asbestos litigation), (2) California, (3) New York City (particularly regarding Americans With Disabilities Act accessibility claims and consumer lawsuits against the food and beverage industry), (4) Louisiana, (5) St. Louis, Missouri, (6) Georgia, (7) Illinois (especially Cook, St. Clair, and Madison counties and regarding asbestos litigation and Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act lawsuits), (8) Oklahoma, (9) the Twin Cities, Minnesota (particularly the Minnesota Supreme Court with several recent liability-expanding decisions), and (10) New Jersey. According to the ATRA’s analysis, these venues are less than optimal for corporate defendants and often attract plaintiffs’ attorneys, particularly for filing class action lawsuits.  Therefore, corporate counsel should take particular care if they encounter a class action lawsuit filed in one of these venues.

The 2020 “Watch List”

The ATRA also included 7 jurisdictions on its “watch list,” including Colorado (principally the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals), Florida (though the ATRA noted that Florida, previously number one on past judicial hellholes lists, has been making strides to improve its liability climate), Maryland, Montana (particularly the Montana Supreme Court), Pennsylvania (especially the Pennsylvania Supreme Court), South Carolina (especially in asbestos litigation), and West Virginia (regarding its Supreme Court of Appeals).

In addition, the ATRA recognized that privacy and security class actions are poised to become a “feeding frenzy” for plaintiffs’ lawyers.  The ATRA cited the pervasiveness of lawsuits under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act as a “stark warning” for how these types of privacy lawsuits are likely to expand at the national level and the impact those lawsuits will have on legitimate businesses (we have previously discussed the rise in BIPA lawsuits and the onset of other biometric privacy legislation here). The Report also noted an escalation of lawsuits filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), with more than 2,500 TCPA suits filed this year alone.

Implications For Employers

The Judicial Hellholes Report dovetails with the experience of employers in high-stakes workplace class actions, as California, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Louisiana, and Florida are among the leading states where Plaintiffs’ lawyers file employment discrimination and wage & hour class actions. Many of these jurisdictions are also becoming a hotbed for privacy and accessibility-related lawsuits. These jurisdictions are linked by class certification standards that are more plaintiff-friendly and by generous damages recovery possibilities under state laws.

By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christopher J. DeGroff, Matthew J. Gagnon, and Kyla Miller

Seyfarth Synopsis: We are once again pleased to offer our loyal blog readers a breakdown of the five most intriguing developments in EEOC litigation in 2017, in addition to a pre-publication preview of our annual report on developments and trends in EEOC-initiated litigation. This year’s book, titled EEOC-Initiated Litigation: FY 2017, provides a comprehensive examination of the EEOC’s FY 2017 filings (from October 2016 through September 2017), and the major decisions handed down this year in pending EEOC litigation.

In our view, every employer should be monitoring EEOC activity – it is the surest way to avoid becoming the EEOC’s next target. That is why we conduct a thorough analysis of all EEOC activity every year to keep our readers up to date on current trends and, hopefully, provide a peek inside the EEOC’s decision-making process. Our annual report is targeted towards HR professionals, corporate counsel, and other corporate decision-makers. We hope that it proves useful as they attempt to steer clear of EEOC-initiated litigation in FY 2018.

This year, we have once again categorized our analysis of substantive developments in line with the EEOC’s strategic priorities. This year is the first year of the EEOC’s new Strategic Enforcement Plan, which covers Fiscal Year 2017 through 2021. The new SEP advances the same six strategic priorities as the previous strategic plan. It has been our experience that analyzing developments in EEOC litigation in light of the SEP priorities provides a better understanding of the EEOC’s focus and agenda.

The full publication will be offered for download as an eBook. To order a copy, please click here.

As always, we like to take a moment at the end of one year, and the beginning of the next, to look back at the most intriguing decisions and developments of the year.

Here is our list of the “top five” most intriguing developments of 2017.

A Year Of Transition: Litigation On Track Despite Changes On The Way

FY 2017 was a year of transition for the EEOC. It is still too early to tell how the changed political landscape will impact the future of EEOC litigation given the important positions that remain vacant for high-level agency personnel. But this did not stop the EEOC from charging full speed ahead. Total merits filings were up more than 100% over FY 2016. In fact, the EEOC filed more lawsuits in September than it did in all of FY 2016 combined. Although the 2017-2021 Strategic Enforcement Plan maintains its focus on the same six strategic enforcement priorities, it added two substantive areas as emerging issues, including complex employment relationships and “backlash discrimination” against Muslims, Sikhs, and other persons of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian descent. Those are important issues to watch in FY 2018 and beyond. Our analysis of these issues can be found here.

A New Standard Of Review For EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Actions

In McLane Co. v. EEOC, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of review for appellate courts reviewing a lower court’s decision to enforce (or not) an EEOC administrative subpoena. In McLane, the Supreme Court held that such decisions are reviewable under the abuse-of-discretion standard, which is more akin to a hands-off type of review. The decision clarified that the District Courts should subject EEOC subpoenas to a searching, fact-intensive review, and that their judgment in this respect should be respected by the appellate courts. Although ostensibly a win for the EEOC, the decision makes it clear that the District Court cannot simply presume the relevance of information or documents the EEOC seeks with its administrative subpoenas. Instead, a District Court must give serious consideration to issues of relevancy and burden when deciding whether or not to enforce an EEOC subpoena. Our analysis of this trend can be found here.

Developments In Religious Discrimination Law: Accommodations May Be Required For Wide Swath Of Beliefs

In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., the Fourth Circuit expanded the scope of religious accommodation requests employers must consider. In Consol, the EEOC alleged that the defendants refused to provide an employee with a religious accommodation by subjecting him to a biometric hand scanner to clock in and out of work. The employee believed a hand scanner was used to identify and collect personal information that would be used by the Christian Anti-Christ to identify followers with the “mark of the beast,” as described in the New Testament Book of Revelation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court against the employer, finding that a religious accommodation was necessary. Our discussion of this development can be found here.

Sexual Harassment In The Workplace: Focus on “Manager”

Given all the recent news about sexual harassment in the workplace, and the fast developing #MeToo movement, we suspect that the EEOC is already preparing for an uptick in sexual harassment complaints in FY 2018. But recent decisions show that not all complaints alleging sexual harassment are a slam dunk for employees. In EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the harassing managerial employee was not a “supervisor” under Title VII. The employer was thus not liable for the employee’s actions. The Sixth Circuit held that just because someone is titled a “manager” does not necessarily mean that they are “supervisors” under Title VII. They must have the authority to take an employment action against the complaining employee. A further discussion on this development can be found here. We expect decisions in FY 2018 will dramatically reshape the landscape of harassment law, with the EEOC leading the way.

EEOC’s Penchant For Expanding Pattern Or Practice Cases

In FY 2017, the EEOC continued to try to expand its powers to prosecute large-scale pattern or practice cases. In EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, a District Court in Texas was willing to reign it in. In that case, the EEOC attempted to add claims on behalf of individuals who had not yet applied to work for Bass Pro at the time the EEOC tried to conciliate its claims against Bass Pro. Title VII requires the EEOC to attempt to resolve charges of discrimination against an employer through means of conciliation before it seeks redress in the courts. In this case, the District Court was unwilling to allow the EEOC to add claimants on behalf of whom it could not have conciliated prior to bringing its lawsuit. A closer look at this development can be found here.

Although we are almost a full year into the Trump Administration and Republican control of Congress, it is still unclear what those political developments will mean for the future of EEOC litigation. The enforcement priorities are the same as the past four years. But how the EEOC chooses to interpret those priorities will undoubtedly change as high-level positions are filled by the Trump Administration. This makes FY 2018 a year of uncertainty as we await those changes in EEOC leadership. We look forward to keeping our readers apprised of these changes as they occur!

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

finger-150x112By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a U.S. District Court’s denial of three post-verdict motions brought by an employer in an EEOC religious discrimination case alleging a failure to accommodate an employee’s Anti-Christ fears. The case is an interesting read for any employer involved in religious discrimination issues.

***

Most religious accommodation lawsuits brought by the EEOC against employers concern mainstream religions. But when the EEOC successfully sues an employer for failing to accommodate an employee’s Anti-Christ fears, employers need to pay attention, especially when that cases involves a jury verdict awarding over $586,000 in total damages (as we blogged about here).

In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., No. 16-1230, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10385 (4th Cir. June 12, 2017), the EEOC alleged that the defendants (“Consol”) refused to provide an employee with a religious accommodation by subjecting him to a biometric hand scanner for purposes of clocking in and out of work.  The employee believed the hand scanner was used to identify and collect personal information that would be used by the Christian Anti-Christ, as described in the New Testament Book of Revelation, to identify followers with the “mark of the beast.”  Following a jury verdict in favor of the EEOC, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied Consol’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), motion for a new trial under Rule 59, and motion to amend the Court’s findings and conclusions under Rule 59.  Following the employer’s appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

With the Fourth Circuit affirming the District Court’s ruling after an eyebrow-raising EEOC jury trial victory, it behooves the interests of employers to consider any and all religious accommodation requests.

Case Background

In the summer of 2012, Consol implemented a biometric hand-scanner system at the mine where the employee worked, in order to better monitor attendance and work hours. Id. at *4.  The scanner system required each employee checking in or out of a shift to scan his or her right hand; the shape of the right hand was then linked to the worker’s unique personnel number.  While Consol implemented the scanner to produce more efficient and accurate time reporting, the employee alleged it presented a threat to his core religious commitments.

As the employee consistently and unsuccessfully sought an accommodation that would preclude him from having to clock in with the scanner, Consol meanwhile allowed employees with injured hands to scan in using a different keypad system.  Id. at *7.  Eventually, the employee decided to retire in lieu of using the hand-scanner, and later found a lower paying job.  The EEOC thereafter brought an enforcement action against Consol on behalf of the employee, alleging a failure to accommodate religious beliefs and constructive discharge.  Id. at *9.  After the case ultimately proceeded to trial, the jury found Consol liable for failing to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs.  The jury awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages and $436,860.74 in front and back pay and lost benefits.  Id. at *10-11.  Consol then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, and a motion to amend the Court’s findings and conclusions under Rule 59.  The District Court denied all three post-verdict motions, and Consol appealed.  Id. at *11.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Consol’s three post-verdict motions.  First, Consol challenged the denial of its renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the District Court erred in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict against it.  Consol argued that it did not fail to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs because there was in fact no conflict between his beliefs and its requirement that he use the hand scanner system.  The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that in both the employee’s request for an accommodation and his trial testimony, the employee carefully and clearly laid out his religious objection to use of the scanner system.  Id. at *13.

Next, regarding the District Court’s denial of its motion for a new trial under Rule 59, Consol raised a handful of objections that primarily related to the District Court’s exclusion of evidence and various issues related to jury instructions.  Id. at *20.  The Fourth Circuit noted that it would “ respect the [D]istrict [C]ourt’s decision absent an abuse of discretion, and will disturb that judgment only in the most exceptional circumstances.”  Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  Further, it opined that, “[w]hen, as here, a new trial is sought based on purported evidentiary errors by the district court, a verdict may be set aside only if an error is so grievous as to have rendered the entire trial unfair.”  Id.  Applying this standard, the Fourth Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion.  Regarding the jury instructions, the Fourth Circuit held that the District Court properly found that Consol failed to show any prejudice arising from any of the instructions at issue.  Id. at *26.

Finally, both parties cross-appealed the District Court’s rulings on lost wages and punitive damages.  The Fourth Circuit rejected Consol’s argument that the employee failed to adequately mitigate his damages by accepting a lower paying job, noting that whether a worker acted reasonably in accepting particular employment is preeminently a question of fact, and that it would not second-guess the District Court.  The Fourth Circuit also rejected the EEOC’s cross-appeal regarding punitive damages, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the EEOC’s evidence fell short of allowing for a determination that Consol’s Title VII violation was the result of the kind of “reckless indifference” necessary to support an award of punitive damages.  Id. at *34.  Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Consol’s three post-verdict motions.

Implications For Employer

While it makes sense from a practical standpoint for employers to foster a work environment that is respectful of its employees’ religious beliefs, this ruling demonstrates that employers should also be tolerant of their employees’ religious accommodation requests for legal and financial reasons.  And although many employers will likely never encounter an employee requesting a religious accommodation to cope with his or her fear of the Anti-Christ, they nonetheless must seriously entertain any and all religious accommodation requests.  Equipped with an Appellate Court affirmation of its jury trial verdict, the EEOC may very well likely “smell blood” in the sea of religious discrimination charges in its backlog.  As such, the best practice for employers is to take a respectful and thoughtful approach to religious accommodation requests to avoid potential EEOC litigation and sometimes unforgiving juries.

Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.

 

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Lily M. Strumwasser

Today we are sharing the second article of a six part series that Seyfarth Shaw LLP is publishing on Inside Counsel. The full article is available here and set out below.

Religious discrimination lawsuits are on the rise. According to the EEOC’s press releases, in its 2013 fiscal year, the Commission filed 12 religious discrimination lawsuits. That is three more religious discrimination lawsuits than filed in fiscal year 2012. The sheer number of religious discrimination charges initiated by the EEOC also should grab employers’ attention. These statistics send the message that religious discrimination is on the EEOC’s radar, and therefore, it should be on the corporate compliance radar screen too.

Religion – It’s a protected class

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers with more than fifteen employees are prohibited from discriminating against employees or applicants based on their religion. Title VII further requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee’s sincerely held religious belief. To avoid providing a religious accommodation, an employer must be able to show that it cannot do so without undue hardship to its business.

In 2008, the EEOC issued revised guidelines to employers regarding their obligations to accommodate religious beliefs. The EEOC’s guidelines define religious beliefs, practices, and observances as “those that are theistic in nature, as well as non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”

Although the EEOC’s guidelines state that employers may question the sincerity of an employee’s religious observance, in the same breath it recommends that employers give substantial deference to an employee’s religious beliefs. Thus, rather than challenge the sincerity of an applicant or employee’s religious belief, employers are better off asserting that the requested accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business.

Religious discrimination cases on the rise

Between 1992 to 2007, religious discrimination claims increased by 100 percent. This statistic grabbed the EEOC’s attention, and since then it has taken several steps to educate employers about what constitutes religious discrimination. Perhaps the attention surrounding religious discrimination emboldened employees to continue filing charges with the EEOC.

In recent years there has been a steady rise in religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC. The graph below displays this trend.

Charges of religious discrimination

  According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the 3,811 religion-based complaints the EEOC received in 2012 was the second-highest level ever — just below the whopping 4,141 claims filed in 2011. The EEOC has not yet reported its tallies for fiscal year 2013; we are anticipating the EEOC will release this information in mid-November to December in the Commission’s annual Performance and Accountability Report.

FY 2013 religious discrimination charges

Taking a look at the specific types of cases initiated by the EEOC provides valuable lessons to employers. The cases below highlight five of the EEOC’s FY 2013 religious discrimination lawsuits.

  1. EEOC v. Bo-Cherry, Inc., d/b/a Bojangles: In this case, the EEOC alleged the employer discriminated against a male Muslim employee based on his religion. The employee worked in the restaurant’s kitchen and followed a sect of the Sunni branch of the Islamic faith, which requires men to grow beards the length of their fist. The employer allegedly instructed the employee to shave his beard. The employee refused, and asked if he could wear a beard net (similar to a hair net). After the employer allegedly denied the employee’s request and subsequently fired him, the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
  2. EEOC v. Dynamic Medical Services, Inc.: In this case, the EEOC asserted the employer violated Title VII by requiring employees to attend classes about Scientology. The EEOC claims employees repeatedly said they did not want to attend the classes but were told it was a job requirement. After two employees refused to participate in the Scientology practices, the employer allegedly terminated their employment, and the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
  3. EEOC v. United Cellular, Inc.: In this case, the EEOC claimed the employer discriminated against a Seventh Day Adventist by refusing to accommodate his religious request to not work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. After the employee refused to work on his Sabbath, the employer allegedly terminated his employment and the EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
  4. EEOC v. Scottish Food Systems, Inc.: In September, the EEOC filed suit on behalf of Sheila Silver, member of the Pentecostal church. The employer required Silver to wear pants to work as part of its dress code policy. As part of Silver’s religious beliefs, she only wears skirts and therefore refused to wear pants to work. The employer allegedly fired Silver for refusing to wear pants and the EEOC subsequently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
  5. EEOC v. CONSOL Energy, Inc. and Consolidated Coal Co.: In this case, the EEOC filed suit on behalf of Beverly Butcher, an Evangelical Christian, alleging her former employer discriminated against her religious beliefs. The employer required its employees to use a biometric hand scanner to track their time and attendance. Butcher informed his employer that using the hand scanner violated his religious beliefs. The employer allegedly refused to offer Butcher an accommodation, such as submitting manual time records or reporting to his supervisor, and the EEOC subsequently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

FY 2013 religious discrimination settlements

During fiscal year 2013, the EEOC also settled several religious discrimination lawsuits. Although the monetary amount of religious discrimination settlements are not as significant as some of the multi-million dollar consent decrees the EEOC has secured in systemic litigation, its religious discrimination settlements provide insight on one of the driving forces behind the EEOC’s religious discrimination initiative. Notably, much is at stake for employers.

The list below highlights some of the EEOC’s religious discrimination settlements in fiscal year 2013.

  1. EEOC v. Ozarks Electric: In March 2013, Ozarks Electric agreed to pay $95,000 to a former Jehovah’s Witness employee to settle her allegations that it failed to provide her a religious accommodation by giving her a day off work to attend a religious convention.  
  2. EEOC v. Landmark Hotel Group: In July 2013, the employer paid $45,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit, which alleged the employer refused to provide a Seventh-day Adventist with a religious accommodation that allowed her to take her Sabbath off work.
  3. EEOC v. Voss Lighting: In this case the employer agreed to furnish $82,500 to an applicant for an available operations supervisor position after it allegedly refused to hire him because of his religious beliefs. During the applicant’s interview, the employer allegedly focused on his religious beliefs and practices and asked the applicant to identify the churches he attended, “when and where he was saved”, and whether he would agree to come to work early to attend Bible study.
  4. EEOC v. Maita Chevrolet Geo: In September 2013, this employer paid $158,000 to settle an employee’s claim that the employer failed to accommodate his religious practice of the Seventh-day Adventist, and instead harassed, disciplined, and discharged him because of his religion.
  5. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: On Seyfarth’s Workplace Class Action Blog, we have reported the EEOC and Abercrombie & Fitch entered into a comprehensive settlement of two separate religious discrimination lawsuits filed on behalf of Muslim teens who wear hijabs (religious headscarves) and who allegedly had adverse employment actions taken against them as a result. Abercrombie agreed to pay $71,000 to the Muslim teenagers. Abercrombie also agreed to inform applicants during interviews that accommodations to the “Look Policy” may be available.

Implications for employers

The EEOC’s pursuit of religious discrimination cases serves as a reminder to employers that when employees ask for religious accommodations, employers must take them seriously. Implementing a policy that requires consideration of the accommodation can aid in avoiding employers’ liability and also works toward the goal of discrimination-free workplaces.