Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

In late September, a federal court determined that a religious discrimination case filed on behalf of Muslim and Sikh bus drivers, train operators and subway station agents should proceed. The federal ruling came a year after a district court judge determined that the case should proceed because the New York Transit Authority had failed to show any undue hardship in allowing the workers to wear their chosen headwear.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law preventing employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion. Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination means that an employer cannot discriminate against you because of your religious beliefs. Federal law also prohibits harassment based on your religion and retaliation for complaining about or participating in someone else’s harassment case.

One of the protections provided by Title VII is that an employer must make a reasonable effort to accommodate your religious beliefs.

In United States v. New York City Transit Authority, transit workers alleged that the NYCTA failed to accommodate Muslim and Sikh employees’ religious practices and beliefs by refusing to permit Muslim women to wear headscarves and Sikh men t wear turbans unless they were covered with Transit Authority caps or attached Transit Authority logos to them. They also alleged that the NYCTA selectively enforced its policies against Muslim and Sikh transit workers.

The district court determined that accommodating the Muslim and Sikh workers by exempting them from the cap and logo requirements would not adversely affect the NYCTA’s public image or detract from the perceived professionalism of its work force.

Continue reading "Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Based On Headwear Policies Continues in United States v. New York City Transit Authority" »

Title VII protects you from religious discrimination. This means that your employer may not discriminate against you “because of” your religious beliefs. But what does this mean in practice? What “protections” does your choice of religion provide you in terms of your job?

Generally, federal anti-discrimination law provides you three types of protections concerning your practice of religion.

First, your employer must make a reasonable effort to accommodate your religious beliefs in the workplace.

Next, your employer may not impose its religious views on you.

Finally your employer may not take adverse actions against you because of your beliefs.

In a recent religious discrimination case, a trucker – Yabesh Maroko - who was a Seventh-day Adventist was assured by a recruiter that he wouldn’t have to work on the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday). But, after Maroko was hired and went through training making deliveries to Wal-Mart, he was told that because Friday nights and
Saturday were the busiest time of the week, his beliefs could not be accommodated.

The manager in charge of finding Maroko alternative delivery assignments failed to find him a new job. Maroko later learned that the company determined that he had “voluntarily quit.” The trucking company said because he “quit” they were not subject to rules regarding religious accommodation.

Continue reading "Trucker May Bring Religious Discrimination Claim" »

A New York federal court has determined that the Department of Justice may proceed with a religious discrimination case against the New York City Transit Authority brought on behalf of New York City bus drivers, train operators and subway station agents who were denied accommodation or subjected to selective enforcement of job-related headwear policies.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on your religious beliefs. Pursuant to Title VII, three separate protections exists:

• Your employer must make reasonable efforts to accommodate your religious beliefs and practices;
• Your employer may not impose its religious views on you or permit your co-employees to impose their religious views on you; and
• Your employer may not take adverse action against you (including harassment) because of your religious beliefs.

In United States v. New York City Transit Auth., the alleged discriminatory practices occurred Post-9/11, with the NYCTA enforcing headwear policies selectively against Muslim bus operators although they had previously worn khimars while providing passenger services. Subway train operators and station agents went through similar experiences regarding the headwear policies for their positions.

Although the NYCTA amended the headwear policies allowing for turban and khimars to be made out of NYCTA blue cotton fabric, they required an agency logo be place in the middle of their religious headwear, rather than allowing the logo to be placed on the collar or pocket.

In rejecting the NYCTA’s assertion of hardship, the court noted that any hardship was “nowhere near as obvious as the hardships posted by exempting the employees of certain commercial businesses from grooming requirements.” Additionally, wearing the logo wasn’t necessitated by a concern for safety.

Continue reading "Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Progresses" »

In May a federal jury awarded a Muslim Egyptian-born man over $3.6 million, as the result of severe religious and race discrimination that forced him to resign from his job at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

In the post-9/11 climate, anti-immigrant sentiment has increased, often taking the form of religious, national origin, or race discrimination. Title VII specifically protects these classes and prohibits your employer from taking adverse action against you because of your race or color, ethnic background, or religious beliefs. If you complain of these types of discrimination or harassment, companies are prohibited from retaliating against you. Often these types of discrimination are intertwined.

In Nassar v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., a jury found that the hospital “constructively discharged" Nassar because of his race, national origin and religious preference. The jury also held that the hospital had retaliated against him in violation of Title VII. Specific discriminatory actions included derogatory comments, and failures/delays in promotion. After Nassar was offered a new job, the hospital contacted the new employer and informed it about Nassar’s EEOC complaint, and recommended Nassar not be hired. Based on the UTSW’s actions, Nassar’s employment offer was rescinded.

Unfortunately, in recent years anti-immigrant discrimination in the work place has proliferated. Often discriminatory actions manifest themselves subtly – such as English only rules and dress codes. Discrimination may also occur in how you are allowed to practice your religion.

Continue reading "Jury Finds Medical Center Discriminated Against Muslim Doctor " »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) maintains and periodically updates a Compliance Manual, an internal guide for EEOC enforcement personnel that contains the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII and the other discrimination laws it enforces. Although the Compliance Manual does not have the force of law, it is a very helpful resource for employees and employers as it explains the EEOC’s approach to enforcing the discrimination laws. It also contains recommendations for employees on how to identify discrimination in the workplace and address it, as well as best practices to help employers to prevent discrimination.

The EEOC recently issued an updated section of the Compliance Manual on religious discrimination. According to the EEOC’s press release accompanying the new section, it issued the new section “in response to an increase in charges of religious discrimination, increased religious diversity in the United States, and requests for guidance from stakeholders and agency personnel investigating and litigating claims of religious discrimination.”

Continue reading "EEOC Updates Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination" »