Religious Accommodation in the Workplace Presented By: Antone Melton-Meaux, Esq. Managing Counsel of Labor and Employment Law St. Jude Medical, Inc. 1

Religion in the World 2

Religion in Minnesota 3

EEOC Religious Discrimination Claims 4

What’s Protected?  Sincerely held beliefs  Belief in “God” not required  Membership in established church/religious institution not required.  Controversial and divisive beliefs  Not Protected  Personal preferences  Political Views 5

Hypothetical – Is This a Protected Belief?  An employee had been working for years at a fast food restaurant. In the past, he wore his hair short, but recently let it grow longer. When his manager advised him that the company has a policy requiring male employees to wear their hair short, the employee explains that he is a newly practicing Nazirite and now adheres to religious beliefs that include not cutting his hair.  Is this a protectable belief?  Yes.  EEOC v. Taco Bell (E.D. N.C. 2011) 6

Hypothetical – Is This a Protected Belief?  An employee claimed that he should be allowed to eat Kozy Kitten cat food at work because of his personal religious creed that cat food contributes significantly to his state of well being and to his overall work performance by increasing his energy.  Is this a protectable belief?  No.  Brown v. Pena (5 th Cir. 1979) 7

Accommodation – Employer Must Be Engaged  Employee must provide notice  Interactive Process  Similar to disability  Mutual exchange of problem-solving  Elimination of the work-religion conflict is not required 8

Hypothetical – What is Notice?  A woman attended an interview for a sales clerk position at a trendy retail store wearing a hijab. When the interviewer sought approval from the supervisor to allow the wearing of the hijab, the supervisor denied the request because doing so would violate the “look” policy, which prohibited hats. The candidate was not hired. The store claimed that it was not being discriminatory because the applicant never directly informed the store of a work/faith conflict.  Did the retail store discriminate against the applicant?  We’ll know in Summer 2015  EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (Sup. Ct. 2015) 9

Interactive Process – Various Ways to Address Conflict  Rescheduling shifts  Accommodating religious clothing requirements  Accommodating religious hair styles and facial hair requirements  Modification of duties  Creating spaces within workplace for worship/prayer 10

What is an Undue Burden?  Increased workload for co-workers  Diminished efficiency  Impacts reasonable policies and procedures  Workplace safety jeopardized  Conflict with union contract 11

Hypothetical – Reasonable Accommodation/Undue Burden  An employee requested to take a few weeks of unpaid leave after learning that his father in Nigeria died. The employee informed his supervisor that he was required to participate in the burial rites. If he did not participate, then his family would suffer spiritual death. The employer denied his request. The employee went to Nigeria and was fired upon his return.  Was the employer’s decision not to grant leave discrimination?  Yes.  Adeye v. Heartland Sweeteners (7th Cir. 2013) 12

Hypothetical – Reasonable Accommodation/Undue Burden  A worker would occasionally end her with “Have a Blessed Day” as an expression of her faith. One vendor objected to the message. The company instructed her to not use the phrase with the complaining vendor, but otherwise allowed the practice. She was terminated after sending the same message in “all caps” to the same vendor.  Was this accommodation reasonable?  Yes.  Anderson v. U.S.F. Logistics (7th Cir. 2001) 13

Hypothetical – Reasonable Accommodation/Undue Burden  An employee requested to wear a kirpan, a Sikh ceremonial sword with a blade long enough to be considered a dangerous weapon. The employer made several accommodation offers such as (1) wearing a shorter kirpan, (2) wearing a dulled blade, and (3) wearing a 'symbolic kirpan.’  Are these accommodations reasonable?  Yes.  Tagore v. IRS (5 th Cir. 2013)

Hypothetical – Reasonable Accommodation/Undue Burden  As an expression of his faith, a nurse prayed with a patient to encourage her not to have an abortion. The hospital instructed the nurse not to pray with patients in the future. As an accommodation, the hospital offered the nurse (1) the option not to have to exam a patient considering an abortion and (2) the choice to end an exam if he learned of the patient’s intent to consider an abortion. The nurse was terminated after insisting on praying with patients.  Did the employee’s insisting on prayer create an undue burden?  Yes  Grant v. Fairview Hospital and Healthcare (D. Minn. 2004) 15

QUESTIONS? THANK YOU 16