A Miami federal jury awarded a hotel dishwasher more than $21 million earlier this month, finding that her employer failed to accommodate her request not to work on Sundays due to her religion.
The employee alleged that she reported to her employer her need to honor the Sabbath on Sundays due to her sincerely held religious beliefs. She claimed to have never worked on a Sunday.
“They accommodated her for seven years and they easily could have accommodated her, but instead of doing that, they set her up for absenteeism and threw her out,” her attorney said in a statement.
The company terminated the female worker after missing six scheduled Sunday shifts to attend church.
The hotel said in a statement that in the 10 years she worked for the hotel, it made “multiple concessions” to accommodate her “personal and religious commitments.”
While she will not receive the full verdict amount due to federal caps on awards, the jury’s decision sends a message on how jurors view employers denying rights to employees.
Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers cannot discriminate against a worker or applicant because of religion and must provide reasonable accommodations for religious practices, absent an undue hardship to the employer.
Cases like this put employers in a difficult predicament because certain employers require staffing during otherwise Sabbath or religious holidays or events, but also must consider the religious beliefs of employees.
To comply with the law, employers need to demonstrate that they carefully considered the requested accommodations, and offered real solutions to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious practices.
In 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a similar case against UPS when the EEOC said UPS failed to accommodate a Jehovah’s Witness’ request for a schedule change.
In that case, the EEOC said that shortly after UPS hired the worker as a part-time loader, the person made a request for a schedule change in order to attend an annual religious service. His supervisor denied the request for a schedule accommodation, and the employee was terminated from his job just a few days later.
The EEOC contended that the refusal to grant the request for a schedule accommodation and the decision to terminate the claimant constituted religious discrimination.
As employers consider accommodating employees, managers should assess “religion” broadly, as the law protects traditional organized religions and new uncommon ones. The EEOC notes that “social, political or economic philosophies or personal preferences are not ‘religious’ beliefs under Title VII.”
An employer need not accommodate the employee if the burden on the business is more than minimal. Accommodations that violate seniority systems, cause a lack of staffing, jeopardize security or health, or cost the employer more than a minimal amount are not generally reasonable accommodations.
For schedule changes in particular that may cause an undue hardship, the EEOC notes that the employer must allow co-workers to voluntarily substitute or swap shifts to accommodate the employee’s religious belief or practice. If an employee cannot be accommodated in the current position, the EEOC suggests transferring the employee to a vacant open position for which the employee is qualified and can be accommodated.
While the employer should not incur significant expense in accommodating an employee, the EEOC notes that “infrequent payment of overtime to employees who substitute shifts is not considered an undue hardship.”
All accommodations require a case-by-case analysis.
Employers should fully document every request for accommodations, all communications on its part to demonstrate the reasonableness of its efforts and responses from the employee.
In some cases, the employee will seek time off for reasons unrelated to religion or may fail to take the initiative to find a replacement worker. Employers also should document the basis for any denial of an accommodation, including the basis for undue hardship.
Legal concerns arise when employers fail to be consistent or cannot support the undue hardship reasoning.