DEI Training and Religious Accommodation

DEI Training and Religious Accommodation

^” Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” 1 Peter 2:12

I am a Christian (Jew/Muslim) and my employer’s mandatory DEI LGBT training conflicts with my religious beliefs.  What to do?

If You Have Sincere Religious Beliefs, Your Employer Must Offer Religious Acommodation if It Poses No Undue Hardship

Thanks to the Supreme Court holding in Groff v DeJoy, the standard for “undue hardship” in the context of religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was redefined.

The Court held that an employer, in denying religious accommodation, MUST show that the burden of granting a religious accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

Upped the Standard for Employers

Previously, the standard for “undue hardship” was based on the de minimis cost rule from the Hardison case, which allowed employers to deny accommodations if they imposed more than a minimal cost.

The Supreme Court in Groff rejected this standard, clarifying that “undue hardship” should be understood as a substantial burden in the overall context of an employer’s business.

The Court emphasized that the analysis must be context-specific, taking into account all relevant factors, including the nature, size, and operating cost of the employer.

California Law

Also, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers are required to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs, observances, and practices unless the accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.

This includes accommodating religious dress and grooming practices, as well as observances of religious holidays and Sabbaths.

The duty to accommodate is also supported by case law, which establishes that employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate religious practices unless it would result in more than a de minimis cost or burden to the employer. Soldinger v Northwest Airlines Inc

The interactive process of determining a reasonable accommodation involves both the employer and the employee engaging in good faith to find a suitable solution.  Lin v Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Factors considered in determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship include the size and budget of the employer, the type of operation, and the nature and cost of the accommodation.

Employers are not required to provide an accommodation if it would violate other laws or civil rights protections.

In summary, while California law mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations for religious practices, this obligation is balanced against the potential undue hardship it may cause to the employer’s business operations.

Not All impacts on Coworkers are Relevant

The decision also highlighted that not all impacts on coworkers are relevant; the primary concern is the conduct of the employer’s business, and only if necessary, the effect on coworkers.

This decision has significant implications for employers, who must now provide more substantial evidence to deny religious accommodations, and for employees, who may find it easier to obtain such accommodations.

Fact-Specific

If your employer forces you to comply with DEI training which goes against your religious beliefs, it is a good idea to seek a religious accommodation.  Whether or not they are obligated to grant you one depends on specific facts.

I include 3 cases which may shed light.

Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband

Buonanno v AT&T Broadband LLC involved an employer failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs.  The Christian employee was terminated after refusing to sign a certification that he would comply with the employer’s diversity policy because doing so would require him to violate his religious beliefs.

In this case, the employer AT&T did not offer a reasonable accommodation and failed to investigate the conflict even after being notified of it. This failure to act on the notice of conflict was a significant factor in the court’s decision.

Ruling

The court ruled:

1. Employee established prima facie claim of religious discrimination based on employer’s failure to accommodate his religious beliefs;
2. Employer failed to show that it was unable based on undue hardship to reasonably accommodate employee’s religious needs; and
3. Employee was entitled to receive compensatory economic damages of $142,269 for back pay from date of termination to time of trial, lost 401(k) pension contributions, prejudgment interest on back pay in form of simple interest at rate of 8%, front pay, and $4,000 in emotional distress damages, but was not entitled to punitive damages or damages for educational expenses.

Employer Must Take Proactive Steps to Address and Accommodate Religious Beliefs

The court’s ruling highlights the importance of employers taking proactive steps to address and accommodate employees’ religious beliefs once they are made aware of any conflicts. Employers must engage in a meaningful dialogue and explore possible accommodations to avoid liability.

This case serves as a reminder for employers to be diligent in their efforts to accommodate religious beliefs in the workplace to comply with legal requirements and avoid similar litigation outcomes.

Brennan v. Deluxe Corporation

In Brennan v. Deluxe Corp. , the employer mandated a DEI interactive training that  (1) all employees were required to complete and (2) to complete the training employees were required to choose the “correct” answer when choosing the “correct” answer would have violated the employee’s religious beliefs.

The court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Deluxe Corporation could have accommodated Brennan’s religious beliefs without undue hardship, and denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

Additionally, the court highlighted that the issue of whether accommodating Brennan would have constituted an undue hardship for Deluxe was a matter for the jury to decide.

EEOC Case Barrett v. Vilsack

In Barrett v Vilsack,  the employer U.S. Department of Agriculture, required mandatory training on LGBTQ issues.  The plaintiff, an engineer requested a religious accommodation.  The employer denied his request and threatened him with discipline.

The EEOC noted that the training did not require the engineer to change his beliefs, nor did it attempt to “modify, criticize or pressure him to change his religious observance or practice – whether before, during or after the training.”

The EEOC concluded that the engineer failed to show that the training conflicted with his sincerely held religious beliefs, observances or practices.

The EEOC decision is not legally binding on federal courts.

What if Employer Forces Me to Use Pronouns?

Beyond “just training”, employer policies that require preferred pronoun use are also problematic if doing so would violate the employee’s religious beliefs.

In any employment – whether public or private – the religious employee will have the right to request a religious accommodation under Title VII.

In addition, in public employment, the employee would also have a constitutional free speech right not to be compelled to engage in speech with which the employee disagrees.

Public School Teacher Kluge and Pronouns

This issue will be decided by the 7th Circuit.  Opening briefs have been filed.KlugeAppellateOpeningBrief

Kluge taught at Brownsburg High School for four years.

In 2017, the school district mandated that teachers refer to transgender-identifying students using pronouns and names inconsistent with their sex.

Kluge requested a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to call all his students by their last names—like a coach—instead of referring to female students with male names and pronouns and vice versa.

The school district granted Kluge this accommodation, and he successfully continued teaching under it for an entire school year. But in response to the grumblings of a few students and teachers, the district revoked the accommodation and forced Kluge to resign, ending his teaching career.