October 10, 2017

The Church of Onionhead: Religious Discrimination Basics in a Changing World

We’re pretty far down the rabbit hole with religious discrimination cases. Since Title VII was enacted in 1964, courts have been asked to find sincerely held religious beliefs in everything from the KKK, to veganism to a guy that liked to eat Kozy Kitten People cat food. (Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corp.) (Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital) (Brown v. Pena). But most recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that a team building tool called, Onionhead, was a religion for purposes of Title VII. (EEOC v. United Health Programs of America). Given the ruling, now seems like as good a time as any to brush up on religious discrimination laws in the workplace.

 

Here are the basics: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. You can’t treat applicants or employees unfavorably in any aspect of employment because they either practice or are associated with an individual of a particular religion. You can’t make or allow frequent offensive remarks about a person’s beliefs and you can’t segregate them because of actual or feared customer preference.

 

To the extent you are aware of their beliefs or practices, you have to reasonably accommodate them unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on your business. Most commonly, accommodations include schedule changes for religious observances and religiously motivated dress or grooming practices.

 

Now, here’s where it can get hairy; Title VII doesn’t limit religion to the generally recognized organized faiths or even to observances that are theistic in nature. The law includes non-theistic moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, even if those beliefs are new, uncommon, illogical to others, or only believed by one individual. If the belief is religious within the meaning of the law, and if the employee’s belief is sincerely held, the employer cannot discriminate and must accommodate those beliefs if necessary. Importantly, Title VII also prohibits reverse discrimination of employer-imposed mainstream or fringe beliefs on employees. This is how Onionhead became a religion.

 

In an effort to combat the deterioration of corporate culture, United Health implemented Onionhead, a conflict resolution character/program designed to transform negative thoughts and behaviors into positive ones. Onionhead was a fictitious onion with human facial features, arms, and legs described as an incredibly pure, wise and adorable character who wants everyone to know how they feel and what to do with those feelings. He was also praised for performing miracles.

 

Employees described Onionhead as a system of religious beliefs and practices and said that they were told to burn candles and incense to cleanse the workplace and were required to engage in chanting and prayer at Onionhead-related meetings. Ex-employees-turned plaintiffs claimed that they were terminated for rejecting Onionhead beliefs and that employees who participated in Onionhead activities were treated more favorably. The court concluded that Onionhead was a religion for purposes of Title VII as a matter of law.

 

Here’s the takeaway: Courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious. If an employee asks you for a religious accommodation, do what you can to make it happen within reason. From a cost-benefit perspective, any potential inconvenience will likely be far outweighed by the costs of litigating a religious discrimination claim. And if it’s your religion, you can certainly express it in company materials or activities, but avoid pushing it on your employees and don’t take adverse action against those who don’t share your beliefs.

 

DISCLAIMER: The information provided herein is general in nature and may not be applicable in all situations. It should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on a particular situation.

Lexington Wolff Rykaczewski is a business employment attorney located in Houston, Texas. A former litigator, Lexi spent years defending companies from employee claims and knows how quickly an expensive lawsuit can throw a business into a tailspin. In 2016, Lexi started Lexington Wolff Law, PLLC, exclusively dedicated to helping employers navigate the extensive employment laws and prevent employee lawsuits. Lexi is admitted to practice law in Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. www.Lexingtonwolfflaw.com

Article Library, Article Library
Matthew Haack
About Matthew Haack

During my career, I have learned many valuable lessons. My Marine Corps values have always steered me in the direction of success. Honesty, Loyalty, Integrity, Equality, and Respect are just a few values that have helped me gain respect from my peers. My education from Northwood University in business management combined with several networking and referral marketing courses have proven to be valuable assets in creating and running a worldwide association! The association’s core values are compassion, understanding, protection, security, communication, and a philosophy of win/win. Our goal is to raise standards for the domestic management industry and all service providers throughout the United States and beyond! Specialties: domestic staff, house manager, estate manager, household manager, domestic association, luxury, service providers, service professional

Cart
Yes No