Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

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

Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality

February 28, 2022 – As the Senate prepares to hold hearings on the historic nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, it’s the perfect time to highlight a new biography about another Black woman who accomplished a series of firsts and who, in another, more modern, era, would almost certainly have been nominated to serve on the Supreme Court – Constance Baker Motley.  

Constance Baker Motley first Black woman to argue before SCOTUS. Constance Baker Motley was not only the first Black woman to argue before the Supreme Court (winning an astonishing nine of 10 cases), but she was also the first black woman to be appointed to the federal judiciary – President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed her to the Southern District of New York.

Motley began college at Fisk University, a historically black college in Nashville, Tennessee, but subsequently transferred to New York University, where she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree. She received her Bachelor of Laws from Columbia Law School. Motley then went to work for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. as a civil rights lawyer, where she wrote the original complaint in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. Her first argument before the Supreme Court was in Meredith v. Fair; she won James Meredith’s effort to be the first black student to attend the University of Mississippi.

Civil Rights Queen Constance Baker MotleyIn her terrific new book on Motley’s life and legacy – called “Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality“- Harvard law professor Tomiko Brown-Nagin Poignantly describes Motley’s life from the time that she was born to a working-class family during the Great Depression, to her role as one of the principal strategists of the Civil Rights Movement and for her legal defense of Martin Luther King Jr., the Freedom Riders, and the Birmingham Children Marchers when she was a civil rights lawyer for the NAACP, to her service in the New York State Senate and as Manhattan Borough President, to her becoming the first Black woman serving in the federal judiciary.

Posted on

Supreme Court Allows Statistical Evidence In Class Actions

In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016), a 6-2 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court took a (small) step back from that draconian anti-class action bulwark – Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). The Supreme Court made clear that plaintiffs may use “representative evidence,” not specific as to each individual involved, to show that the group could have had the same legal claim, without having to prove it individually – “a representative or statistical sample, like all evidence, is a means to establish or defend against liability.” It is allowed into a trial, of a class action or other type of case, depending “on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements” of the legal claim at stake, the opinion added. “It follows that the Court would reach too far were it to establish general rules governing the use of statistical evidence, or so-called representative evidence, in all class-action cases.”

“In many cases,” according to the Court majority, “a representative sample is ‘the only practicable means to collect and present relevant data’” to prove that the company or entity being sued was legally at fault. The opinion went on to provide some guidance to when such evidence would be allowed into a class action case: that is, when each member of the class could rely on the sample to establish that he would have won the case, if he had filed it individually, rather than along with others.

Posted on

Helmer Friedman LLP Takes Cases To U.S. Supreme Court

Helmer Friedman, Crystal Lightfoot presents case to U.S. Supreme Court. On November 8, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case Helmer Friedman LLP successfully convinced the high court to hear.  The case — Lightfoot v. Fannie Mae, Cendant Mortgage Corporation case (14-1055) — concerns whether individual homeowners who have been wrongly or fraudulently foreclosed upon by Fannie Mae have the right to sue the mortgage giant in the state courts.

According to the Supreme Court, approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed each Term and the Court grants and hears oral argument in merely 80 of those cases – about 1%.

If you want to check out our petition for a writ of certiorari which got the ball in motion for this oral argument, you can read it here http://www.helmerfriedman.com/docs/Petition-Writ_Crystal-Lightfoot-v-Cendant-Mortgage.pdf

If you care to read all of the documents and commentary about the case,you can check it out here https://www.helmerfriedman.com/us-supreme-court-grants-petition-certiorari/

Posted on

“Take this Job and Shove it” – Supreme Court Considers When The Clock Starts to Run on Constructive Discharge Claims

Status of limitation - time is running out - the clock is ticking away.

In Green v. Brennan, 2016 WL 2945236 (U.S. May 23, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court considered when the clock starts to run on a constructive discharge claim. Before discussing the Supreme Court’s decision, a little background information is in order.

Generally, employees only have limited amounts of time to bring their employment-related claims against their employers. How much time is determined by various laws called “statutes of limitation.” For example, in California, employees have one year to file a complaint of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Then, employees have an additional year from the date of the DFEH’s Right-To-Sue Letter to file a lawsuit in court.

Under California state law, the statutes of limitation on a wrongful termination claim begin to run on actual termination date, rather than the date when employer informs the employee that discharge was inevitable. Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 479 (1996). Under federal law, the statutes of limitation begin to run when the employer notifies the employee that his or her employment will be ending. Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 259, 101 S. Ct. 498, 504 (1980).

But, when does the clock begin to run on a constructive discharge claim (a claim that the employer forced the employee to resign)? Say that on November 1st the employee gives her employer two weeks notice that she will be resigning on November 15th. Do the statutes of limitations begin to run on November 1st or November 15th?  In Green v. Brennan, 2016 WL 2945236 (U.S. May 23, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court examined this very issue. The Supreme Court concluded that the statutes begin to run on the date the employee gives notice of his or her intent to resign (rather than his or her last day of employment).

Green v. Brennan involved a former U.S. Postal Service Employee, Marvin Green, who claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race (African-American).  Green worked for the Postal Service for nearly 35 years. Green complained that he was denied a promotion because of his race. Not surprisingly, following his complaint, his relations with his supervisors crumbled. Relations hit a nadir on December 11, 2009, when two of Green’s supervisors accused him of intentionally delaying the mail—a criminal offense. On December 16, 2009, Green and the Postal Service signed an agreement whereby the Postal Service promised not to pursue criminal charges in exchange for Green’s promise to leave his post. The agreement gave Green a choice: effective March 31, 2010, he could either retire or report for duty in another location at a considerably lower salary. Green chose to retire. He submitted his resignation to the Postal Service on February 9, 2010, effective March 31.

Eventually, Green contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor to report an unlawful constructive discharge. He contended that his supervisors had threatened criminal charges and negotiated the resulting agreement in retaliation for his original complaint. He alleged that the choice he had been given effectively forced his resignation in violation of Title VII.

Subsequently, Green filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging, inter alia, that the Postal Service constructively discharged him. The Postal Service moved for summary judgment, arguing that Green had failed to make timely contact with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the “matter alleged to be discriminatory,” as required by 29 CFR § 1614.105(a)(1). The District Court granted the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed holding that Green’s claim was time-barred because the date Green signed the settlement agreement was the Postal Service’s last discriminatory act triggering the filing deadline that Green failed to meet.

In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court held the time period for filing a constructive discharge claim “begins running only after the employee resigns.”  The Court explained that this means the clock begins to run when the employee gives definite “notice” of his or her resignation, not the date the resignation is effective. In other words, if an employee gives two weeks notice, the clock starts to run on the date of the notice, not two weeks later on the employee’s last day of work.

Employees considering resignation due to intolerable working conditions should consult with employment counsel before submitting their resignation.  The courts have made it very difficult for employees to successfully bring a constructive discharge claim. Employment counsel can help employees properly place their employers on notice as to the intolerable working conditions.