Religious Discrimination in Employment

People should be hired or not hired because of their skills and merit, not because of their faith. And people should not be forced to choose between their faiths and their jobs.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public and private employment. It also requires employers to make reasonable accommodation of employees' religious observances and practices, unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Section 702 of Title VII protects the independence and autonomy of religious institutions by permitting them to consider religion in hiring decisions. The Civil Rights Division has responsibility for bringing suits under Title VII against state and local governmental employers. Under § 706 of Title VII, individual cases of discrimination against state and local governmental entities must be filed in the first instance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which can refer cases to the Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division then opens a supplemental investigation, if warranted, to determine if a lawsuit is appropriate. When a pattern or practice of discrimination by a governmental entity is alleged, the Civil Rights Division may file suit on its own volition under § 707 of Title VII.

Recent Cases:

• United States v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority: The Civil Rights Division filed suit against the LA MTA over its policy of refusing to accept bus driver applications unless the applicant indicated that he or she was available to work 24 hours per day, seven days a week. The suit alleged that this policy discriminated against Sabbath-observant Jews and Christians and others who refrain from work on certain days for religious reasons, by failing to make any effort to provide them with the religious accommodation Title VII requires. The Civil Rights Division reached a consent decree that requires the MTA to accept the applications of Sabbath-observant applicants; provide applicants with information about their accommodation rights; permit drivers to swap assignments with other drivers, and when no acceptable assignment is possible either through use of seniority rights or swaps, permit drivers to take temporary leaves of absence; and provide information about religious accommodation in marketing literature and in its training programs for supervisors. View the press release.

• United States v. New York Metropolitan Transit Authority: The Civil Rights Division filed suit against the NY MTA alleging that it has discriminated against Muslim and Sikh bus and subway drivers by refusing to permit them to wear headscarves and turbans. The suit alleges that the Muslim and Sikh drivers were forbidden to wear these religious headcoverings with their uniforms, while other MTA workers were allowed to wear non-regulation headgear, such as baseball caps, without penalty. The case is pending.

• United States v. State of Ohio: The Civil Rights Division and the EEOC filed suit against Ohio state agencies and their employee union over its refusal to accommodate certain employees' religious objections to supporting the union through compulsory fees. The suit alleged that employees who are members of churches that have "historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting" unions are permitted to pay an amount equal to the union service fee to a charity mutually agreeable to the employee and the union. However, the suit alleged that Ohio has refused to extend this exemption to state employees with sincere religious objections to supporting the union, but who do not belong to such churches. The case arose out of a complaint from an employee of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, who is Presbyterian and objects to supporting the union because he alleges that the union and its affiliates support abortion and same-sex marriage. The parties settled the case with a proposed consent decree on September 1, 2006. See the press release.

• Baker v. The Home Depot: The Civil Rights Division filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, arguing that offering an employee only the morning off to attend worship services on the Sabbath was not a reasonable accommodation under Title VII when the employee's faith required refraining from work altogether on the Sabbath. The court of appeals agreed on April 19, 2006, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether permitting the employee to refrain from work on the Sabbath would be an undue hardship for the defendant.

• Lown v. Salvation Army: a group of current and former Salvation Army employees sued the Salvation Army and New York City and State officials, claiming that because the Salvation Army contracts with the City to provide a variety of services, including adoption, foster care, hospice care, and many other social services, the Salvation Army could no longer use religious criteria in its hiring and staffing decisions. Section 702 of Title VII protects the independence and autonomy of religious organizations by exempting them from the prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. The plaintiffs, however, argued that it would violate the Establishment Clause for the Salvation Army to invoke this provision when contracting with the government. The Civil Rights Division filed a brief arguing that so long as the services being provided under the contract were secular in nature, the Salvation Army did not lose its right to define and preserve its character and identity as a religious organization through its personnel practices. The court agreed on September 30, 2005, and ruled in favor of the Salvation Army and the other defendants.

Information on filing a complaint for religious discrimination in employment is available here.