Posted in Religious Discrimination
Can an employer’s religious beliefs defeat an otherwise discriminatory
termination? Employers in Michigan may soon have much-needed guidance on this
issue based on an employment discrimination case filed by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Federal District Court in Michigan.
Specifically, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against RG & GR Harris
Funeral Homes, Inc. In 2013 over its decision to fire a transgender funeral
director (EEOC v RG & GR
Harris Funeral Homes Complaint).
Both sides filed motions for summary judgment on April 7, 2016, and awaiting a
decision from the District Court Judge.
Religious Beliefs and Transgender Discrimination
As to the underlying discrimination
suit, the employee had worked for the funeral home beginning in 2007. In July
2013, the employee informed the funeral home and her coworkers that she was
undergoing gender transition from male to female and intended to address in
appropriate business attire as a woman going forward. But on August 15, 2013,
she was fired by the majority owner, Thomas Rost, because he found it
unacceptable based on his religious views. He owns 94.5% of the business
and claims he is a devout Christian.
The EEOC claimed that the employee, as a
transgender woman, was fired because of sex and, therefore, this termination
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rost did not dispute that
his religion played some role in firing the funeral director in 2013. According
to court filings:
Rost sincerely believes that the Bible
teaches that a person’s sex (whether male or female) is an immutable God-given
gift and that it is wrong for a person to deny his or her God-given sex.
Rost
sincerely believes that he would be violating God’s commands if he were to pay
for or otherwise permit one of RG’s funeral directors to wear the uniform for
members of the opposite sex while at work.
The EEOC, however (and
perhaps citing to Deuteronomy 13:1 “Whatever I am now commanding you, you
must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away”) responded
that Rost’s religious exercise is very selective and based on convenience or
profit. Consider
for example:
·
Rost’s
business employs people of various faiths;
·
Non-Jewish
employees sometimes wore traditional Jewish head coverings as a courtesy when
hosting Jewish funeral services;
·
The
facilities were not decorated with religious fixtures to avoid offending
visitors;
·
The
business is not a Christian business enterprise, it is not affiliated with a
church, and its articles of incorporation “do not avow any religious purpose;
and
·
Rost
routinely acted against his religious beliefs to stay in business by performing
cremations instead of holding funerals or accommodating the non-Christian
beliefs of his customers.
The EEOC stopped short of noting that
Mr. Rost also chose to ignore God’s directives set forth in Deuteronomy 13:7-11
with respect to the fired employee, the non-Christian employees, and
non-Christian customers.
Closing
Thoughts
I’ve always found religious
discrimination claims to be incredibly fascinating. In part because of the
numerous issues – legal, social, and theological – that are often in play. This
case is no different and we’ll be monitoring this case for a decision on the
competing motions for summary judgment.
But one point that is especially unique
and thought provoking here is how much fidelity must an individual give to
his or her religion to warrant protections – either as a basis to justify an
otherwise unlawful firing or to claim religious discrimination?
As noted above, the EEOC highlighted
numerous inconsistencies between the employer’s claimed beliefs that motivated
the termination and how the business was run. And we’ve defended a number of
religious accommodation cases where individuals often take a very liberal
“buffet” approach as to what “sincerely held religious beliefs” they choose to
live by and to ignore.
For
more information about religious discrimination or other employment legal
issues, contact employment attorney Jason Shinn. Mr. Shinn is a Michigan attorney. Since 2001, he has worked with
businesses and individuals to address employment law issues under federal and
Michigan law.
No comments:
Post a Comment