Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
Employee’s religious beliefs are not protected when they prevent him from taking on all types of work at employee’s meat-packing plant.
A ham-processing plant did not discriminate against a Muslim employee when it fired him after he refused to perform his job because it required him to touch pork.
The employee did not speak English; he used an interpreter to apply for the job and indicated on his application that he would accept “any position” at the plant. He was hired as a sanitation employee to clean equipment, but after leaving his post several times without permission, he was transferred to the production line where he would have more supervision. He refused the job, because it required him to touch pork, which he contended was against his religion. His employer considered him to have quit his job, and terminated his employment. The plaintiff contended that he had told his interpreter he could not touch pork, but although his interpreter’s notes indicated that the plaintiff preferred not to work with meat, he never stated that avoiding it was a religious necessity.
The court held that it was unreasonable to expect the employer -- a pork-processing plant -- to accommodate the employee’s religious belief and refusal to touch pork. Although he contended that he had told his employer he could not touch pork, he had also indicated that he was willing to work any available job. Given the nature of the employer’s business, it was impossible for the court to believe that he had in fact told his employer that he could not touch the company’s main product. The company also demonstrated that it would be an undue hardship to restructure any position to allow the plaintiff to avoid contact with pork. He needed more supervision than was available on the sanitation crew, which also required the handling of pork at times, and the court found that the company was not required to bow to the religious idiosyncrasies of a single employee, particularly since evidence showed that the company accommodated various religious needs of other Muslims in the plant, all of whom did not have a problem touching pork.
This case demonstrates the limits of religious discrimination claims. Employers are not required to accommodate every request an employee makes on the basis of religion; the law requires only reasonable accommodation.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Al-Jabery v. ConAgra Foods Inc., 2007 WL 3124628 (D. Neb., October 24, 2007)].
Employee who was fired after reporting his supervisor’s threatening behavior to police could move forward with his claim of retaliation under Title VII.
A male university employee who experienced sexual harassment at the hands of his female supervisor could go to a jury with his claim that his employer retaliated against him for involving the police in the matter.
The plaintiff had made numerous complaints to university officials about his supervisor, who greatly increased his workload, screamed at him, spit in his face and verbally attacked him after he refused her sexual advances. In response to the plaintiff’s complaints, the university gave him a new supervisor and later recommended him for a promotion to begin after the winter holidays. However, during the university’s winter break, the harasser slashed the plaintiff’s tires and then confronted him, verbally abusing him and threatening violence. The plaintiff went to the police and sought and received an injunction against the harasser. The university then rescinded the promotion and fired him on the grounds that going to the police had been unprofessional and unnecessarily disruptive to the workplace.
The court held that in this case, the plaintiff’s act of going to the police was protected conduct under Title VII, and firing him for his action was unlawful retaliation. It reasoned that the university’s rationale would prevent any victim of sexual harassment from involving the police, even in extreme cases, such as rape. In this case, the court could not find that the university’s reason for firing the plaintiff -- that he acted unprofessionally and disrupted the workplace by going to the police -- was legitimate and nondiscriminatory. It was for a jury to make that decision.
This case describes an interesting and somewhat unusual example of conduct that is protected under Title VII. It is important for employers to remember that employees are protected not only when they make internal complaints of discrimination and harassment; external complaints can be protected as well.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Scarbrough v. Board of Trs. Fla. A&M Univ., -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 3053430 (11th Cir., October 22, 2007)].
Employer violated state wage law when it refused to pay temporary workers their earned vacation pay if they left their jobs before the end of the year.
Temporary employment agency Kelly Services violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, because its vacation and holiday pay policies denied certain pay to employees who had earned it under the law.
With respect to vacation pay, the Act holds that when an employee is fired or resigns, his employer must pay his final compensation promptly, including the monetary equivalent of vacation that was earned but not taken. Kelly’s policy, however, paid earned vacation pay only to temporary workers who had worked at least 1,500 hours that year and were employed at the end of the year. The company’s holiday pay policy stated that a temporary employee would be eligible for one of the company’s recognized “paid holidays” if he worked 960 hours in the six months leading up to the holiday, at least 30 hours in the week preceding the holiday and were available to work during the holiday week. The plaintiffs alleged that the vacation policy violated the Act, because it denied them pay for vacation time they had earned but not taken. They also alleged that the company refused to give them paid time off during the company’s stated holidays, instead offering them time off without pay.
Both these policies violated the Act, the court ruled. Illinois law holds that when an employer’s vacation policy provides that employees earn vacation based on how long they have worked, then employees accrue their vacation pay pro rata. Because Kelly based entitlement to vacation on the number of hours an employee had worked, its plan was a length-of-service plan. Therefore, any employee who left Kelly after working at least 1,500 hours that year was entitled to a pro rata payment of his unused vacation, no matter when in the year employment ended. With respect to holiday pay, the court rejected Kelly’s argument that its holiday policy provided only for time off work; the clear language of Kelly’s policy entitled employees to paid time off if they met the company’s eligibility guidelines.
This case demonstrates the importance of drafting all employment policies to comply with the law and of employers’ adhering to their policies as written.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Arrez v. Kelly Servs. Inc., -- F.Supp.2d --, 2007 WL 3170118 (N.D. Ill., October 29, 2007)].
Company not liable for firing employees who complained of racial harassment and then refused to accept company’s reasonable resolution of the matter.
Oil company BP Products was not liable for maintaining a racially harassing environment at one of its gas stations, because it appropriately investigated the complaints of two employees, even though they did not believe their employer had done enough.
The two plaintiffs, Lovelace (who was African American) and Picciano (who was white), alleged that a coworker of Lebanese ancestry (Abboud) made racist comments about African American customers and employees. They contended they had each filed a complaint about Abboud’s comments, but never received a response from management. Picciano then filed a complaint alleging that on April 5, Abboud made a racist comment about an African American customer. The company was unable to corroborate her allegations after an investigation. Abboud denied making the statement, and BP instructed all involved to move on.
Although Lovelace had not been present to hear the alleged comment, she and Picciano each filed a number of additional complaints about Abboud, many of them relating to the April 5 incident. They talked incessantly about the incident, confronted Abboud about it, filed additional complaints and tried to enlist other employees in their campaign against Abboud. Other employees began making complaints about Lovelace and Picciano. After another fight with Abboud, the two left the store and refused requests to return. Instead, they filed a lawsuit claiming racial harassment.
The court found that even if some of Abboud’s statements were rude and insensitive, they were not so objectively offensive that a reasonable person would not have been able to function in the work environment. Even after viewing store surveillance tapes, the company was unable to corroborate the statements that were allegedly racially hostile, and many of the arguments between the women did not mention race at all. More importantly, the court chastised the plaintiffs for their own behavior in failing to let the matter drop. Much of the disruption to the employer’s workplace was a result of their own actions, “fanning the flames” of discontent and taking offense at the slightest comments. After BP had responded appropriately to the April 5 incident, it was the plaintiffs who could not let the issue rest. Given these circumstances, no harassment could be found.
This case demonstrates how important -- and difficult -- it can be for an employer to manage allegations of harassment so that both the “victim” and harasser are treated fairly, particularly in cases such as this, where there is no clear answer about who is at fault.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Lovelace v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 2007 WL 3101361 (6th Cir., October 19, 2007)].