Conservative Christian Employee States Claim for Failure to Accommodate Religious Beliefs Under Title VII
December 27, 2011
Jonathan E. "Jon" O'Connell- Northern Virginia
Title VII prohibits employer discrimination “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” With respect to religion, Title VII requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs and practices, unless making such accommodations would be an “undue hardship.” A recent federal court decision — Weathers v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., No. 09 C 5493 (N.D. Ill. November 1, 2011) — illustrates the caution employers must exercise in responding to and accommodating religious speech in the workplace.
Background
Eric Weathers (Weathers) began his employment with FedEx in 1988. In 2007, he was promoted to Direct Sales Manager. Weathers belonged to a group of Christian FedEx employees and described himself as a conservative evangelical Christian.
In August 2007, one of Weathers’ subordinates filed an internal discrimination complaint against him, asserting that he quoted bible scripture to her on a number of occasions, “discussed his religion in an uncomfortable and offensive manner,” and generally treated her harshly.
Following an internal investigation, FedEx determined that Weathers did not violate any company policies, including its religious discrimination policy. But FedEx did issue him a letter of counseling stating that his discussions of religion with other employees “must cease” — even if those discussions were initiated by other employees. The letter also noted other concerns with Weathers’ leadership ability.
Subsequently, Weathers emailed his supervisors requesting clarification regarding the prohibition against having discussions of religion with other employees. He stated:
“My faith directs me to be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks me to give a reason for the hope that is within me. At what point and in what physical location(s) does Title VII permit me, and other FedEx employees to answer such genuinely posed questions?”
He did not receive a response to his email. Furthermore, in response to a follow-up verbal inquiry to a FedEx human resources representative, Weathers was told that he could not discuss his faith because it was a “detrimental act.”
In February 2008, Weathers received a letter of counseling regarding his team’s performance. The same month, he received a letter of warning — a more significant disciplinary action — for failing to meet expectations, and was removed from his managerial position. In March 2008, Weathers resigned from FedEx, and sued.
The Court’s Decision
In his lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Weathers asserted claims under Title VII, including: hostile work environment, constructive discharge, religious discrimination, retaliation and failure to provide a religious accommodation. Following discovery, FedEx filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims.
Although the court dismissed the hostile work environment, constructive discharge, religious discrimination and retaliation claims, it ruled that Weathers’ failure to accommodate claim could proceed to trial. The court reasoned that Weathers produced sufficient evidence to convince a jury both that he had a bona fide religious belief and that his email was “a request for assistance ... to help resolve the tension between FedEx’s directive to him and his religious belief.” In other words, Weathers’ email was a legitimate request for a religious accommodation. Because FedEx failed to establish that it accommodated Weathers (or that an accommodation would have been an “undue hardship”), the court denied FedEx’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the accommodation claim to proceed to trial.
What the Decision Means
Although lawsuits involving allegations of failure to accommodate religious beliefs are relatively rare (compared to disability-based accommodation lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act), such claims can create significant liability exposure for employers.
This decision demonstrates several counterintuitive concepts regarding an employer’s obligation to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices. First, it demonstrates that Title VII protects an employee’s right to speak about religion in the workplace. Second, it shows that religious beliefs do not need to be “mainstream” to be protected; rather, the belief must merely be “‘religious’ in the employee’s own scheme or religion, and the belief must be sincerely held.” Third, an employee need not use the word “accommodate” or “accommodation” to make a protected request for accommodation to which the employer must respond.
As the court stated, “to be sure, Weathers does not use the word ‘accommodate,’ but he does not need to use that magic word.” His question, “[a]t what point and in what physical location(s) does Title VII permit me, and other FedEx employees to answer such genuinely posed questions,” was a request for assistance from FedEx to help resolve the tension between FedEx’s directive to him to stop talking about religion and his religious beliefs and was sufficient to trigger FedEx’s obligation to accommodate his religious beliefs by providing an answer to the question.
The bottom line is that an employer acts at its peril if it denies employees an opportunity to express their religious beliefs in the workplace, or if it refuses to answer questions about how and where employees may express their religious beliefs in the workplace.
Employers should ensure that managers and human resources professionals receive appropriate training regarding Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion and an employer’s duty to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices.
Related Practices