Category: Religious Discrimination

Posted on

Denied for Your Faith? The Reality of Religious Discrimination

Freedom to worship - Workplace discrimination lawyers represent victims of religious discrimination.

Denied for Your Faith? The Reality of Religious Discrimination

For many, faith is not merely a weekend activity; it is the compass that guides daily life, influencing diet, dress, and ethical decisions. Yet, in the modern workplace, employees are often forced to make an impossible choice between their career and their conscience. Despite robust legal protections at both the state and federal levels, religious discrimination remains a pervasive issue in American offices, factories, and retail floors.

No worker should have to hide their identity or compromise their sincerely held beliefs to keep a paycheck. Understanding the nuances of the law—and the obligations of employers—is the first step toward combating unlawful treatment. Whether you are an employee seeking to understand your rights or a manager aiming to foster an inclusive environment, recognizing the signs of discrimination is essential for maintaining a just workplace.

Defining Religious Discrimination

At its core, religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of their religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), protection extends beyond belief to include religious observance and practice. Crucially, the law also protects those who have no religious beliefs, shielding atheists and agnostics from forced participation in religious activities or discrimination based on their lack of faith.

Discrimination can manifest in various employment decisions, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, and fringe benefits. It can also appear in the form of harassment—such as offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices—that is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment.

What Discrimination Looks Like in Practice

Religious discrimination is often subtle, but it can also be overt. It frequently arises when workplace rules collide with religious obligations. Here are several scenarios that may constitute unlawful conduct:

  • Refusal to Hire: An employer refuses to hire a qualified Jewish applicant because they disclose that they cannot work on Saturdays due to Sabbath observance.
  • Scheduling Conflicts: An employee is fired for missing work to attend a significant religious service, even after providing ample notice, while employees taking time off for secular reasons are accommodated.
  • Dress Code Violations: A company enforces a strict “no headwear” policy that disproportionately impacts Muslim women who wear hijabs or Sikh men who wear turbans, without offering a valid safety justification.
  • Harassment: A supervisor or colleague persistently mocks an employee’s religious garments, prayer habits, or dietary restrictions, isolating the employee from the team.
  • Forced Work: A manager demands that an employee work on their Sabbath, ignoring the fact that other qualified employees were willing to swap shifts.

Employer Obligations: The Duty to Accommodate

The law requires more than just “not discriminating.” Employers have an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause an “undue hardship” on the operation of the business.

Common accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or dress codes.

The Shift in “Undue Hardship”

For decades, employers could deny accommodations by proving that the request imposed more than a “de minimis”—or trifling—cost. This low bar allowed companies to reject requests for Sabbath observance or prayer breaks easily.

However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. USPS. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian postal carrier who refused to work Sundays. The Justices clarified that “undue hardship” must mean substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business.

This decision significantly strengthens protections for employees. Employers can no longer deny an accommodation simply because it is inconvenient or causes minor administrative annoyance; they must demonstrate that the accommodation would substantially burden the business.

Recent Legal Battles and Settlements

Recent high-profile cases illustrate that the courts and government agencies are taking a firm stance against religious discrimination. These cases, while the parties were not represented by Helmer Friedman LLP, provide important precedents and show the real-world impact of successful advocacy.

Mavis Tire Supply LLC

In late 2025, Mavis Tire Supply LLC agreed to pay over $303,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit. The case involved a Jewish applicant who applied for a management position. During the interview, he disclosed that his observance of the Sabbath would prevent him from working Friday evenings and Saturdays.

Rather than discussing accommodation, the company offered him a lower-paying technician role, claiming it offered better flexibility. When he reiterated his schedule restrictions, they rescinded the offer entirely. The settlement highlighted that employers cannot steer applicants away from leadership roles simply to avoid granting religious accommodations.

Lisa Domski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

In a landmark verdict regarding vaccine mandates, a federal jury awarded $12.7 million to Lisa Domski, a former IT specialist at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Domski, a devout Catholic, requested a religious exemption from the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, citing her objection to vaccines developed using fetal cell lines.

Despite working 100% remotely with no in-person contact, her request was denied, and she was terminated. The jury found that the company failed to accommodate her sincerely held beliefs. The massive award, which included $10 million in punitive damages, sends a clear message: employers cannot dismiss religious objections as insincere simply because they disagree with the employee’s theological interpretation.

Practical Steps for Employees

If you believe you are facing religious discrimination or have been denied a reasonable accommodation, taking immediate, organized action is vital to protecting your rights.

  1. Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of all incidents. Note dates, times, locations, witnesses, and the specific comments or actions taken. If you requested an accommodation, keep copies of all written requests and the employer’s responses.
  2. Review Company Policy: Check your employee handbook for policies regarding discrimination and accommodation. Follow the internal procedures for reporting grievances.
  3. Report the Incident: Formally report the discrimination or denial of accommodation to your Human Resources department or a manager. doing this in writing creates a paper trail proving the employer was on notice.
  4. Consult a Legal Professional: Employment law is complex and involves strict statutes of limitations. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment discrimination can help you navigate the EEOC complaint process or potential litigation.

Best Practices for Employers

To avoid litigation and foster a respectful work environment, employers should proactively review their policies in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

  • Update Policies: Ensure the handbook explicitly prohibits religious discrimination and outlines a straightforward procedure for requesting accommodations.
  • Train Management: Managers are often the first point of contact for accommodation requests. They must be trained to recognize these requests and understand that “inconvenience” is not a valid reason for denial.
  • Engage in an Interactive Process: When an employee requests an accommodation, engage in a dialogue to understand their needs and explore potential solutions.
  • Assess “Undue Hardship” Carefully: Before denying a request, conduct a factual analysis. Will this truly cause substantial cost or disruption? If the answer is no, the accommodation should likely be granted.

Protecting Religious Freedom at Work

A workplace should be a space of professional contribution, not a battleground for personal identity. The freedom to practice one’s religion—or to practice no religion at all—is a fundamental right that does not evaporate when an employee clocks in.

As evidenced by the Groff decision and recent jury verdicts, the legal system is increasingly protective of these rights. Both employers and employees have a role to play in ensuring that the workplace remains diverse, inclusive, and compliant with the law.

Resources for Further Information

Posted on

Happy Hanukkah

Happy Hanukkah from Helmer Friedman LLP legal team.

As the days grow shorter and the nights longer, a celebration of light, resilience, and faith begins. Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is a story passed down through generations, a testament to the enduring power of hope in the face of darkness.

More than two millennia ago, the land of Judea was ruled by the Seleucid Empire. Its king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, sought to suppress Jewish culture and religious practice. He desecrated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the center of Jewish life, and outlawed core traditions. In response, a small band of Jewish rebels, led by Judah Maccabee and his family, rose up against the powerful army. They were known as the Maccabees, a name meaning “the hammers.”

Happy Hanukkah!Against all odds, after a three-year struggle, this small group of fighters successfully reclaimed the Temple. Their victory was not just a military one; it was a triumph for religious freedom. When they entered the Temple to rededicate it, they found it in disarray. They worked to purify it and relight the menorah, a sacred candelabrum meant to burn continuously.

Here, a new challenge arose. They could find only one small jar of consecrated olive oil, enough to light the menorah for a single day. Yet, a miracle occurred. The small amount of oil burned for eight nights, the time it took to prepare new, pure oil.

This is why Hanukkah is celebrated for eight nights. Each evening, another candle is added to the menorah, symbolizing the miracle and the growing light that pushes back the darkness. We eat foods fried in oil, like latkes (potato pancakes) and sufganiyot (jelly-filled pastries like donuts), to remember the oil that burned so brightly. We play with the dreidel, a spinning top that recalls a time when studying the Torah was forbidden, and children would pretend to play games while secretly learning.

Today, the story of Hanukkah speaks to a universal human experience. It is a reminder that even in moments of profound adversity, faith and resilience can lead to miraculous outcomes. It teaches us that the light of a single candle, like a single act of courage or hope, can defy the shadows. As we gather with loved ones, the glow of the menorah is more than just a tradition; it is a symbol of hope for all people, a celebration of light’s enduring power to overcome darkness, and the quiet strength found in unwavering belief.

Posted on

Religious Discrimination – Failure to Accommodate

Nationality Discrimination & Harassment is illegal. Helmer Friedman LLP Los Angeles Nationality Discrimination lawyers.

Lawsuit Charging Debt Collector Denied Employee Unpaid Time Off to Observe Religious Holidays, Forcing Him to Quit

The history of the United States is littered with countless examples of discrimination and injustices. To help address this pressing issue, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. This federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The legislation was necessary to address widespread and profound discriminatory practices rampant in the employment sector. The Act has served society by promoting a wholesome and diverse workplace, boosting economic productivity by placing competent individuals in positions irrespective of their identities.

In light of this regulation, the recent case involving Center One and Capital Management Services offers a pertinent example of religious discrimination. Center One, a provider of debt collection services, and its related company, Capital Management Services, fell under scrutiny for alleged religious discrimination. The lawsuit, filed in 2016, claimed that an employee practicing Messianic Judaism was denied a change in work schedule to observe religious holidays. The company refused due to the employee’s inability to provide certification from a religious leader or organization.

The company’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which clearly states employers must present reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices, barring undue hardship on the employers’ business. The employee was represented by attorneys from the Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic, and despite the district court initially granting summary judgment for Center One and Capital Management Services, the appellate court vacated this ruling.

This case eventually resulted in the companies agreeing to a settlement before trial and paying the employee $60,000. Additionally, they were prohibited from denying reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs and specifically barred from requiring certification from a religious leader or group as a precondition for providing religious accommodation.

Cases like this are a stark reminder that religious discrimination still pervades our society, even in today’s progressive times. It’s important to note that if you, or anyone else, are experiencing religious discrimination, including refusal of employment due to religion or denial of religious accommodation, it’s advisable to seek the services of a lawyer specializing in employment law. Lawyers with this expertise can guide you through legal complexities, ensuring you get the protection and justice you deserve under the law and ultimately contributing to a more equitable and respectful society.

Posted on

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION LAWSUIT – TRIPLE CANOPY, INC. TO PAY $110,759

Religious discrimination, retaliation for refusing accommodation for employees beard.

Government Contractor Settles Federal Lawsuit Alleging It Failed to Provide Religious Accommodations and Retaliated Against Employee

Summary:

  • Triple Canopy, a Virginia-based company providing protective services to federal agencies, will pay a former employee $110,759 and provide other relief to settle a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
  • Triple Canopy denied a religious accommodation to an employee who held a Christian belief that men must wear beards because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a certified or documented religious leader.
  • The EEOC filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.
  • Under a three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, in addition to monetary relief for the affected employee, Triple Canopy will institute and disseminate a new religious accommodation policy; provide training on religious discrimination and retaliation; and report to the EEOC quarterly on any complaints of religious discrimination and retaliation.

Triple Canopy, Inc., a company based in Reston, Virginia that provides protective services to federal agencies, has settled a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by agreeing to pay a former employee $110,759 and provide other relief, as announced by the agency.

“Title VII broadly defines religion; it applies not only to mainstream religious beliefs that are part of a formal religious group, but also to all aspects of an individual’s religious observance, practice, and belief. When religion conflicts with a work requirement, employers must provide an accommodation unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that Triple Canopy refused to provide a religious accommodation to an employee who believed that men must wear beards due to their Christian faith because the employee was unable to provide additional evidence of his beliefs or a statement from a certified or documented religious leader. The lawsuit also stated that Triple Canopy retaliated against the employee by subjecting him to intolerable working conditions that resulted in his constructive discharge.

The alleged behavior is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates that employers accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would result in undue hardship and prohibits retaliation against anyone who complains about discrimination. The EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Triple Canopy, Inc., Civil Action No.1:23-cv-1500) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

“This lawsuit raised serious issues of discrimination and retaliation. We are pleased that Triple Canopy was willing to agree to an early resolution that will compensate the affected former employee and also improve its handling of religious accommodation requests going forward.”

Under a three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, in addition to monetary relief for the affected employee, Triple Canopy will create and disseminate a new religious accommodation policy, provide training on religious discrimination and retaliation, and report quarterly to the EEOC on any claims of religious discrimination and retaliation.

Debra M. Lawrence, the EEOC’s Philadelphia Regional Attorney, stated, “This lawsuit raised serious issues of discrimination and retaliation. We are pleased that Triple Canopy was willing to agree to an early resolution that will compensate the affected former employee and also improve its handling of religious accommodation requests going forward.”

Mindy E. Weinstein, director of the EEOC’s Washington Field Office, stated, “Title VII broadly defines religion; it applies not only to mainstream religious beliefs that are part of a formal religious group, but also to all aspects of an individual’s religious observance, practice, and belief. When religion conflicts with a work requirement, employers must provide an accommodation unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”