New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The EEOC recently settled a religious discrimination lawsuit with Convergys Customers Management Group ("Convergys"), which is a subsidiary of Cincinnati based Convergys Group, and a global provider of customer management services. The EEOC had charged Convergs with not hiring a job applicant who could not work on Saturdays because of his religious beliefs.

The EEOC alleged that Shannon Fantroy responded to an online advertisement for the position of customer service representative at Convergys' call center in Hazelwood, Missouri. During Fantroy's interview, the recruiter told him that he would have to work weekends. Fantroy told the recruiter that he could not work on Saturdays because of his religious beliefs. Fantroy was a Hebrew Israelite who observed Sabbath from sunup until sundown on Saturday. The recruiter told Fantroy that the interview was over if he could not work Saturdays and ended the interview.

Barbary A. Seely, the regional attorney for the EEOC's St. Louis District Office, stated that "Mr. Fantroy never had a chance to discuss accommodation options because the recruiter simply cut him off once he stated that because of his religious beliefs he could not work on Saturdays." She added that "Giving an employee an alternate schedule where hundreds of employees are available to cover the shift was not an unreasonable request . . . Other call center employers around the country should take note of these requirements."

The two year consent decree provides that Convergys must train its recruiters on religious discrimination and accommodation law. Convergys must put in place a new company procedure which allows job applicants who have been offered a position to request religious accommodation. The decree also requires the recruiters to finish each interview application process even if the applicant states that he or she may need a schedule adjustment. The decree also requires Convergys to give written notice to all job applicants in the next two years that they may be entitled to an accommodation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against a person because of their religious beliefs regarding any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, job assignments, pay, layoffs, promotions, training, or any other terms or condition of employment. If you are a business or a private employer with 15 or more employees who have worked for you at least twenty calendar weeks in the current or past year, you are a covered employer under the law and you must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on your company's operations. Some examples of religious accommodation include flexible scheduling, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace practices.

However, you do not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs if doing so would cause your business an undue hardship. For example, an undue hardship is one that is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, affects other employee's rights, or requires other employees to do more than their share of hazardous or burdensome work.

If you are a covered employer under the Title VII, make sure your employees and recruiters are trained in religious discrimination law. Our attorneys have conducted hundreds of training seminars for managers, supervisors and recruiters to help them understand the law and prevent unnecessary litigation. Call our Religious Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help your company avoid potential discrimination lawsuits.

Continue reading "Failure to Accommodate Religious Beliefs Leads to Settlement Involving Employment Policy Changes" »

The EEOC recently announced a lawsuit it filed a lawsuit against Grand Central Partnership, Inc. ("GCP") for violating a prior consent decree by committing new acts of discrimination. The new charges allege that GCP fired a black Rastafarian security officer in retaliation for his complaining of discrimination and threats of violence. The earlier consent decree was entered into in 2009 and promised to provide Rastafarian security officers accommodation for their religious practices.

GCP is a non-profit developer in New York City that manages the Grand Central Business Improvement District, which is one of the largest business improvement districts in the world.

In 2009, the EEOC and GCP settled a lawsuit over how GCP treated its Rastafarian and Caribbean security officers. The parties agreed in a consent decree that GCP would accommodate the Rastafarian security officer's religious practices and not retaliate against them for participating in the lawsuit. GCP is still subject to court supervision as part of that settlement.

More recently, in 2010, and as part of the new lawsuit, a non-Caribbean security officer threatened to shoot and kill a group of Rastafarian security officers. After a white security supervisor made light of the situation, a Rastafarian security officer objected to his conduct and called him a racist for referring to a group of Rastafarians with the "N" word. After he complained and called the EEOC, he was fired by the GCP three months later.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It also makes it illegal to retaliate against an individual for engaging in "protected activity" such as filing a discrimination charge, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices. In this case, the Rastafarian officer reported the threats and complained to the EEOC, which is protected activity. Thereafter, he was fired for having complained.

The Regional Attorney of the EEOC's New York District Office, Elizabeth Grossman, stated that the "EEOC is particularly concerned when it obtains a consent decree to stop violations of the law and the employer turns around and ignores the settlement by reverting to the illegal behavior." Michael Ranis, a trial attorney at the same office added that "Retaliation against an employee who objects to threats of violence against his co-religionists and then objects to racism will not be tolerated. EEOC's lawsuit should make it clear that an employee may not blame the victim when it loses control of its managers and employees."

It is a shame that GCP personnel continued to engage in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct even after being sued by the EEOC and agreeing to change its conduct. Clearly these employees needed more than a consent decree to learn how not to engage in discriminatory behavior. Unfortunately, such conduct is prevalent and becomes a liability costing thousands for many businesses. Our experienced Discrimination Attorneys have conducted many training sessions and seminars on discrimination at the workplace which have made a real difference in how employees conduct themselves to prevent litigation. Call our Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help provide training and seminars to prevent potential litigation from financially destroying your business.

Continue reading "New York Discrimination and Retaliation Update: Make Sure Your Employees Don't Retaliate Against Complaints of Religious Discrimination" »

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit alleging religion discrimination with Dresser Rand, a manufacturer of custom turbines, compressors and other industrial products. Dresser Rand also has contracts with the U.S. government and the Navy. The consent decree provides for Dresser Rand to pay $110,000 as well amend its equal employment opportunity policy, which includes holding anti-discrimination training and putting up notices regarding discrimination laws.

The lawsuit alleged that Harry Davis, an employee at Dresser Rand's location in Painted Post, New York, was not accommodated for his religious beliefs. Davis, a Jehovah's Witness and a skilled machine tool operator worked at Dresser Rand for over 20 years. As a Jehovah Witness, his religious belief was that he did not work on any part of product that could be used as weapon of war. For many years, he refused to work on projects that involved orders from any of the Armed Services. Accordingly, these projects were reassigned to other machine operators. Davis' supervisors were aware of his beliefs and provided him with reasonable accommodation over the years.

In 2002, Davis was asked to work on a part which was going to be used on a United States naval submarine. Just like he did in the past, Davis refused to work on it. However, this time he was cited for insubordination and then fired after he refused to accept an alternate assignment in the shipping department.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged Rand with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on religion. Title VII makes it illegal to discriminate based on religion with respect to any aspect of employment. This includes hiring, firing, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, pay, and any other term of employment.

Once an employee points out that he has a religious belief or practice that conflicts with his working terms or conditions, an employer must reasonably accommodate the employee's religious beliefs unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the employer's business operations. In other words, the employer must accommodate the worker unless it would cause an undue hardship. An undue hardship could be something that is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases efficiency, or interferes with the rights of other employees. For example, if an employee's religious beliefs prevent him from working Friday nights and as long as switching schedules with another employee doe not cause undue hardship, the employer must try to accommodate the religious belief. When the employer does make accommodations, the employee must then accept it. For example, if the employer accommodated the worker by giving him the Saturday night shift, he or she then cannot refuse because they don't want to work on a Saturday night.

Religious claims, regarding reasonable accommodation and discrimination, have been rising in the post 9 11 era. If you feel your religious beliefs and practices are not being reasonably accommodated at your place of employment, call our Employment Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help evaluate your claim. Our attorneys have helped many people obtain reasonable accommodations while retaining their jobs.

Continue reading "Failure to Accommodate Employee's Religious Beliefs Leads to $110,000 Settlement" »

Q: I recently applied for a job at a well known clothing store. After the store manager offered me the position, I informed him that due to my religious beliefs, I could not work on Saturdays. He then told me that was unacceptable and took the job offer back. Is this religious discrimination and if so, what can I do?

Our Religion Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala have helped hundreds attain justice for being discriminated against as well as obtain reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs.

Your question brings to mind a recent case that the EEOC recently brought against Tri-County Lexus, a car dealership, for refusing to hire a Sikh man, Gurpreet S. Khera, for a sales job because he wouldn't shave his beard because of his religious beliefs. Sikh religion requires him to wear a beard, have long hair and a turban. Khera had prior sales experience and impressed Tri-County's recruiter who had him attend a multi-day training at the dealership. Khera was told at the end of the training that he would have to shave off his beard if he wanted the job because the dealership had a grooming policy against facial hair. Khera was rejected for the job because he refused to shave off his beard for religious reasons.

The EEOC has stated that where "a reasonable accommodation can be made, the law prevents an employer from requiring an employee to choose between being hired and following his or her religious practices." The EEOC added that allowing "Mr. Khera to wear his beard because of religious belief would not have been a burden on the dealership."

It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of their religious beliefs. Your employer cannot discriminate against you regarding any aspect of employment, including but not limited to hiring, firing, promotions, layoffs, training, compensation, or job placement. Furthermore, your employer must reasonably accommodate your religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would cause undue hardship. This means that your employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments so that you can practice your religion. Examples of this include flexible scheduling, job reassignments and voluntary shift swaps.

This accommodation also extends to religious clothing and grooming practices. For example, your employer cannot discriminate against you if you are Jewish and you wear a yarmulke on your head, if you are Sikh and you wear a beard and turbin, or if you are a female Muslim who wears a headscarf. Your employer can refuse to accommodate you if doing so is costly, interferes with workplace safety, is not efficient, or infringes on other workers' rights.

Continue reading "Religious Discrimination in New York and New Jersey Q&A" »