All Associates Report To Bible Study Class Now — Or Get Fired!

Do these things have anything in common — skirts, hair follicles, the flu, and the Mark of the Beast — and in an employment-law article? I asked this question a years ago in an ATL post.

My answer: “Yep. They all involve employee religious beliefs or practices.”

The gist of the post was that Title VII “require[s] an employer, once aware that a religious accommodation is needed [for, say, grooming or dress], to accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship.”

The religious discrimination cases which get reported involve, typically, an employee whose religious beliefs require certain dress or grooming which contravenes a company’s “look policy,” or an employee whose religious beliefs and practices require certain days or time off. A reasonable accommodation is required unless unduly burdensome to the employer — and it usually isn’t.

Here’s A Twist

What about a case where an employee, who does not share the religious belief of her employer, is nonetheless required by the employer to attend a daily Bible study class — or be fired?

Is that employee entitled to an accommodation, like absenting herself from the class? In fact, is this even a matter of religious discrimination — no one is interfering with her religious beliefs or practices.

Put the question differently: if an employee is entitled to an accommodation based upon her religious beliefs, is she entitled to an accommodation based upon her lack of religious beliefs?

Put it to yourself: Would you feel comfortable if your supervising partner came into your office and demanded that you attend a daily or weekly study session of a religion of which you are not a believer? Or, in the alternative, suffer termination?

As with anything associated with religion, the answer is not always so simple.

“We Begin Each Day with a Biblical Verse, Which We Can Apply To Our Lives!”

Last year just such a case arose — a Texas medical practice began conducting morning Bible study classes. So far, so good. The problem arose when the company made attendance mandatory, even for non-believers.

Whoa….

This isn’t preventing employees from practicing their religion or expressing their religious beliefs, but of forcing them to sit in at religious classes even if they are not of the faith of the employer. As the EEOC suit at the time noted, the employer required every employee to “begin each workday with a reading or study of Biblical verses, to include a discussion of how those principles could be applied to the employees’ personal lives.”

I see trouble ahead.

“I’m A Buddhist — Do I Have To Go?”

An employee who practices Buddhism repeatedly requested “to be excused from attending the religious portion of the compulsory meetings.”

She was fired — as were three other employees who “were fired after expressing their objections or opposition to the office’s mandatory meeting requirements for compliance with the religious expectations of the owners.”

Looks like this could also be retaliation, right?

“I’m Half Native American And My Church Is A Sweat Lodge: Do I Have To Go?”

These employees sought an accommodation — to be exempted from the mandatory attendance policy on religious grounds — same as an employee who seeks an accommodation to wear a hijab, or head scarf, or one whose religious beliefs require time off on Friday evening.

It just so happens that what impelled me to write this post is a new $800,000 lawsuit by a painter who worked for an Oregon construction company who has alleged that he was fired because he refused to attend a required weekly Christian Bible study as part of his employment.

The employee says that he is half Native-American, and alleges that he was not comfortable attending these classes since “his church is a sweat lodge, his bible is a drum, and that’s his form of worship to the creator.” He told the owner that requiring him to attend was illegal, but initially attended anyway because he thought he had no other choice.

He eventually asked himself, “Do I do something that I really am uncomfortable with and goes against my own beliefs and keep my job, or do I refuse to go and risk losing my job?”

“You’re An At-Will Employee: You’re Fired!”

He stopped going — and lost his job.

It was reported that the company’s attorney said, “We believe that this requirement [of mandatory attendance] was not illegal. These are at-will employees and they were paid to go. It was part of their job, so they were expected to attend.”

Hmmm… at-will employees? Part of the job — of a painter?

Does This Pass The Smell Test?

The case is a little more complicated, so read the complaint and the news article and make your own determination.

An EEOC attorney commented after last year’s lawsuit was filed that while “employers and employees are not required to leave their own religious beliefs at home when they walk through the workplace door … the law requires that employers reasonably accom­modate requests to be excused from company-sponsored religious activities rather than firing employees who seek such accommodation.”

Seems right to me.

The Oregon employer, however, is not fazed by the new lawsuit; his lawyer said that it “has not shaken his belief in God.”

Takeaway

Amen.

---

Richard B. Cohen has litigated and arbitrated complex business and employment disputes for almost 40 years, and is a partner in the NYC office of the national “cloud” law firm FisherBroyles. He is the creator and author of his firm’s Employment Discrimination blog, and received an award from the American Bar Association for his blog posts. You can reach him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter at @richard09535496.