If you thought the Church of Body Modification was stretching the bounds of religious accommodation, now we’ve got veganism to contend with, at least in one courtroom.
A recent case in Ohio shows how far religious accommodation may be heading, says BLR legal editor Joan Farrell.
In the case, a customer service rep in a hospital was fired for refusing to take a flu shot. The employee said that because the vaccine was grown in chicken eggs, accepting the vaccine would violate her veganism dietary rules. The employee claimed her veganism is a moral and ethical belief that is sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views and therefore protected under Title VII.
To bolster her case, she offered an essay titled “The Biblical Basis of Veganism.” The court denied summary judgment for the employer saying it found it “plausible” that the plaintiff subscribed to veganism with a sincerity that equated a religious view.
But the court also said the employer could justify its mandatory vaccination program by providing evidence of the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s contact with patients and of the risk her refusal would pose. (The hospital had accommodated her request to forgo the vaccination in the past.) Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (S.D. Ohio, December 27, 2012).
We don’t know how this case will turn out, but either way, it’s an important reminder to all employers to train managers to respond carefully and respectfully to any request for religious accommodation, no matter how far-fetched it might seem.
What Is a Religious Practice?
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, religious practices include traditional religious beliefs, moral and ethical beliefs, and beliefs that individuals hold “with the strength of traditional religious views” (29 CFR 1605.1). Religious discrimination also includes discrimination against an individual because he or she is an atheist.
The fact that an individual’s beliefs are not espoused by any religious group or are not accepted by the religious group to which the individual professes to belong will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief. However, beliefs are not protected merely because they are sincerely held. According to the EEOC, religion typically includes ultimate ideas about "life, purpose, and death." (And diet, apparently.)
HR Audit Checklists ensures that you have a chance to fix problems before government agents or employees’ attorneys get a chance. For a limited time, try HR Audit Checklists as also receive the FREE REPORT: HR Training to Avoid Lawsuits, Audits, and Fines. Get it Now.
What Does the Law Require?
Federal law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits religious discrimination by employers with 15 or more employees (42 USC 2000e-2). Under Title VII, it is unlawful to discharge or otherwise discriminate against or harass applicants or employees on the basis of religion. In addition, Title VII requires that an employer provide reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless it would cause the employer an undue hardship.
Employers are also prohibited from discriminating against an individual based on his or her association with a person of a particular religion. For example, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee who is a Christian because he or she is married to a Muslim.
Harassment Is Prohibited
Harassment in the workplace based on an employee’s religious beliefs violates Title VII when the harassing conduct creates a hostile work environment.
According to EEOC guidelines, employers must provide a workplace that is free of harassment based on religion. They may be liable not only for harassment by supervisors but also by coworkers or by nonemployees (e.g., customers or vendors) under their control.
Employers should clearly communicate to all employees, preferably through a written policy, that harassment such as verbal or physical abuse directed toward any religious group is prohibited.
An employer should have effective, clear, and well-disseminated policies and procedures for addressing complaints of harassment and should train managers to identify and respond effectively to harassment even in the absence of a complaint.
Using the "hope" system to avoid lawsuits? (We "hope" we’re doing it right.) Be sure! Download the FREE REPORT, HR Training to Avoid Lawsuits, Audits, and Fines, and also try HR Audit Checklists on us for 30 days. Learn More.
Retaliation Is Also Prohibited
It is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an individual for opposing discriminatory practices, or for filing a charge, testifying, or participating in an investigation, hearing, or other proceeding under Title VII.
Exemptions
Title VII permits religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies to hire only individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the organization’s activities.
In tomorrow’s Advisor, religious accommodation requirements plus an introduction to the best—and maybe only—way to find problems before the feds do—the HR audit.
Believe it or not, California of all places has rejected veganism as a religion. The California Court of Appeals has held that veganism doesn’t qualify as a protected religious creed because the practice was merely “a personal philosophy, albeit shared by many others, and a way of life.”
Snarky comments (And diet, apparently.) don’t change the fact that the hospital had accommodated her request in the past, and that they gave the hospital a chance to offer evidence that something had changed which would require her to get the vaccine. If nothing had changed I would suspect that this was simply an effort to get rid of an employee that the hospital found inconvenient … or perhaps in the tone of this article … not to be taken seriously.
I take offense to the way this piece is sarcastically written as if veganism is yet another dumb religious belief. With all the recalls and cruelty on factory farms, it’s no wonder the numbers of vegans is increasing.
The author didn’t do his homework on this. I’m not vegan but I know that there are a variety of reason why someone would chose a vegan diet. Many choose it because of the way they (deeply) believe animals should be treated. Therefore, it is a belief rather than a diet. I don’t know that the individual in the story is qualified for her job, given her restriction, but I’m glad the court will listen to all the facts before making its decision. Also, I don’t like to read stories that ridicule others. How about more respect at BLR?
We apologize if you were offended by the article. This was not our intention. The court case in question was about whether veganism should qualify as a religion, and whether or not it might require a religious accommodation. It was not an argument for or against veganism in general.