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).
