religious accommodation

By Peter TalibartKiran SeldonErin Hawthorne and Kathryn Weaver

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national

Continue Reading Navigating Global Religious Accommodation: Insights from Our Lawyers on Employer Responsibilities Towards Religious Beliefs in the Workforce

By Dawn SoloweyLynn Kappelman, and Darien Harris

Seyfarth Synopsis:  A unanimous Supreme Court has issued its decision in Groff v. Dejoy, clarifying Title VII’s undue hardship standard to mean “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”  The Court effectively disavowed the long-standing de minimis standard from the seminal TWA v. Hardison

Continue Reading A Unanimous Supreme Court Rules on Undue Hardship in Religious Accommodation: De Minimis Is Out, “Substantial Increased Costs” Is In

By Darien C. Harris, Dawn Reddy Solowey, and Lynn A. Kappelman

Seyfarth Synopsis: As of February 28, 2023, diverse coalitions – including a host of Republican Congressmen and 22 state Attorneys General – have filed nearly thirty amicus briefs urging the United States Supreme Court to seize the opportunity to overturn the decades-old de minimis standard to religious

Continue Reading With SCOTUS Poised to Redefine Title VII’s Religious Accommodation Test, Republican Powerbrokers and Religious Coalitions Chime In

By Linda C. Schoonmaker and Vanessa Rogers

Seyfarth Synopsis: Vaccinations have been widely debated over the past few years, leaving employers unclear about their obligations to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs conflict with them. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision providing insight into vaccination accommodations and establishing favorable precedent for employers.

Specifically, the
Continue Reading 5th Circuit Says No, Employer Not Liable for Religious Discrimination, Retaliation, or First Amendment Violations in Employee Vaccination Case

By Dawn Reddy Solowey and Latoya R. Laing

Seyfarth Synopsis: The 8th Circuit recently held that while a request for a religious accommodation  may qualify as a protected activity, it is not necessarily “oppositional” so as to give rise to an opposition-clause retaliation claim under Title VII. Employers considering requests for religious accommodation should, despite this Circuit’s narrow decision,
Continue Reading 8th Circuit Agrees, Request for Religious Accommodation is not Oppositional Conduct

By Michael L. DeMarino and Dawn R. Solowey

Seyfarth SynopsisTitle VII requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for an employee’s religious practices. But what is “reasonable” has been the subject of much debate and litigation.  The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Christmon v. B&B Airparts, Inc., No. 17-3209, 2018 WL 2344628, at *1 (10th Cir. May 24,
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Reaffirms That Title VII Does Not Require Employers to Offer an Employee Their “Preferred” Religious Accommodation

By Christine Mary Costantino and Dawn Reddy Solowey

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Tenth Circuit has recently vacated summary judgment in favor of an employer in a religious accommodation case that centers on what constitutes a “reasonable” accommodation of an employee’s observance of – and consequent inability to work on – the Sabbath. In this case, the Court found that the
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Rules Reasonableness of Religious Accommodations Requires Factual Determination

By Dawn Reddy Solowey

Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent decision by a federal district court in Minnesota held that a religious accommodation request is not “protected activity” under Title VII.  In defending retaliation litigation, employers should consider whether there is a viable argument that a request for religious accommodation is not sufficient to establish protected activity as a matter of
Continue Reading Court Rules Request for Religious Accommodation Is Not “Protected Activity” for Title VII Retaliation

By Dawn Reddy Solowey

Seyfarth Synopsis: In EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a judgment against an employer for failing to accommodate an employee’s religious belief that a biometric hand scanner would tag him with the “Mark of the Beast,” contrary to his evangelical Christian religious beliefs.  

On June 12, 2017, in EEOC v.
Continue Reading The Antichrist at Work: 4th Circuit Affirms Judgment Against Employer for Failing to Accommodate Employee’s Religious Belief Regarding “Mark of the Beast”

By Dawn Reddy Solowey

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a recent federal case the employer has challenged the EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation taking the position that a religious accommodation request does not meet the test for protected activity under Title VII. In defending retaliation litigation, employers should consider whether there is a viable argument that a request for religious accommodation
Continue Reading Is a Request for Religious Accommodation “Protected Activity” for a Title VII Retaliation Claim?