Claims of religious discrimination are on the upswing, leaving many employers scrambling to avoid liability for failing to properly manage the complicated interplay between faith and work. Of all the classifications protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religion perhaps presents the most diverse range of issues for employers. From dress and grooming standards to work schedules and holiday parties, religion’s intersection with employment can affect most aspects of your business. With many employers facing religious discrimination charges for the first time and serving as examples for others, the variety of ways religious claims can arise is quickly becoming clear. 
Religious bias claims are ascending
Although federal law has prohibited religious discrimination in the workplace since 1964, employers historically have faced far fewer discrimination claims based on religion than on other protected characteristics. Religion-based charges still lag significantly behind charges based on the “big four” protected characteristics of sex, race, age, and disability. Nevertheless, the number of charges based on religion has risen significantly over the last decade.
The Wall Street Journal reported in October 2013 that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 3,811 religion-based complaints in fiscal year 2012, the second highest number of such charges ever after the record 4,151 charges it received in 2011. According to the article, experts attribute that uptick to increased immigration, more open discussion of religion, and workers’ growing assertiveness.
Although most charges filed with the EEOC are resolved without civil litigation, the number of religious discrimination lawsuits filed by the agency also is increasing. During its 2013 fiscal year, the EEOC filed 12 lawsuits accusing employers of discriminating against employees on the basis of religion—three more than it filed during the previous year and about nine percent of all the lawsuits it brought in fiscal 2013.
Many of the recent charges involve allegations of discrimination against Muslim employees. The EEOC reports that during the initial months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it saw a 250 percent increase in the number of religion-based discrimination charges involving Muslims. Over the last decade, the agency has filed nearly 90 lawsuits alleging religious and national origin discrimination against members of the Muslim, Sikh, Arab, Middle Eastern, and South Asian communities. Those lawsuits often contain allegations that the victim was subjected to harassing taunts—e.g., being called “Saddam Hussein,” “camel eater,” or “terrorist.”
But while the EEOC has focused new attention on claims of discrimination against employees perceived to be Muslim or Arab, the agency appears to have simultaneously intensified its enforcement efforts against religious discrimination in general.
Settlements show breadth of issues
During the waning days of 2013, the EEOC announced settlements of several religious discrimination lawsuits involving diverse allegations. The subject matter of the lawsuits demonstrates the wide range of issues affected by the law’s prohibition on religious discrimination.
On December 23, the EEOC announced that it had settled religious bias claims against Dynamic Medical Services, a Miami company that provides medical and chiropractic services. In its lawsuit, the agency alleged that the company required employees to spend at least half their workday attending courses that involved Scientology practices, such as screaming at ashtrays and staring at someone for eight hours without moving.
The EEOC also alleged that the company had instructed employees to attend the Church of Scientology and required one employee to undergo an “audit” by connecting herself to an “E-meter,” which Scientologists believe is a religious artifact, and submit to “purification” treatment at the church. When two employees refused to participate in the Scientology practices, the company fired them. The EEOC alleged that by engaging in such practices and discharging the noncompliant employees, the employer had attempted to force employees to conform to a particular religion in violation of federal law.
Under the terms of the settlement, the company paid the employees $170,000. It also agreed to train its employees on religious discrimination, accommodate employees’ requests to refrain from participating in religious activities at work, and adopt an antidiscrimination policy explaining employees’ rights under federal discrimination law.
Also on December 23, the EEOC announced that it had settled its lawsuit against a North Carolina Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchise. A KFC employee who had converted to Pentecostalism in 2010 believes that women must not wear pants. According to the complaint, the company told the employee that she had to wear pants to work to comply with its dress code. When she refused, the company fired her.
Faced with the EEOC’s allegation that it was required to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs because they didn’t pose an undue hardship, the company agreed to pay her $40,000, adopt a formal religious accommodation policy, and conduct an annual training program on Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination.
On December 20, the EEOC announced that McDonald’s Restaurants of California had agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a claim that the company had violated Title VII by refusing a request from a Muslim employee to grow a beard for religious reasons. The employee had quit his job at the company, allegedly because he wasn’t permitted to grow a beard. In addition to the monetary settlement, the company agreed to reinforce its training for managers and staff and redistribute its existing policies on religious discrimination and accommodation.
Bottom line
The increased attention on religious discrimination makes this a good time to review your company’s antidiscrimination policies and practices and ensure that religious issues are adequately and properly covered. Make sure supervisors are trained on how to handle employee requests for religious accommodations. Be sure they know that in this context, just treating everybody the same may mean they are illegally discriminating. With appropriate precautions, and perhaps a little prayer, you might avoid becoming the next employer on the wrong end of an EEOC claim.
Rodney L. Bean is an attorney with Steptoe & Johnson in the firm’s Morgantown, West Virginia, office. He may be contacted at rodney.bean@steptoe-johnson.com.