Agency required to accommodate religious practices of employees

Agency required to accommodate religious practices of employees

Under Title VII, employers are required to accommodate the religious

practices of their employees unless a requested accommodation is shown to

impose an undue hardship.  42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b)(1).

The traditional framework for establishing a prima facie case of

discrimination based on religious accommodation requires complainant to

demonstrate that: (1) he or she has a bona fide religious belief, the

practice of which conflicted with their employment, (2) he or she informed

the agency of this belief and conflict, and (3) the agency nevertheless

enforced its requirement against complainant.  Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8

F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir. 1993); Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co.,

736 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir. 1984).  Once a complainant establishes a

prima facie case, the agency must show that it made a good faith effort to

reasonably accommodate complainant’s religious beliefs and, if such proof

fails, the agency must show that the alternative means of accommodation

proffered by complainant could not be granted without imposing an undue

hardship on the agency’s operations.  See Tiano v. Dillard Dept. Stores,

Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1998); Redmond v. GAF Corporation,

574 F.2d 897, 902 (7th Cir. 1978); Cardona v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Request No. 05890532 (October 25, 1989). Pursuant to 29

C.F.R. § 1605.2(a)-(e), the Commission’s “Guidelines on Discrimination

Because of Religion” (the Guidelines), alternatives for accommodating

an employee’s religious practices include, but are not limited to,

voluntary substitutes and swaps, flexible scheduling, and lateral

transfers and job changes.  Undue hardship does not become a defense

until the employer claims it as a defense to its duty to accommodate.

Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 68-69 (1986).

In order to show undue hardship, an employer must demonstrate that an

accommodation would require more than a de minimis cost.  Trans World

Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).