Religous Discrimination |

Trump Administration Enforcement Priorities Require Cautious Handling Of Religious Accommodation Requests

May 4, 2025

A $95,000 settlement of a Justice Department religious discrimination lawsuit alerts businesses to use care when handling religious accommodation requests in employment or other aspects of their operations in light of the Trump Administration’s announced enforcement priorities.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“CRA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion. The Justice Department warns enforcing the CRA’s religious protections is a Trump Administration priority in its May 2, 2025 announcement of a consent decree settlement of its CRA Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against the Advanced Science and Technology Education Charter Schools (“ASTEC”) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The lawsuit alleges ASTEC discriminated against Marcus Rethwill, a former teacher at the school, on the basis of religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by terminating him after denying his request for a religious exemption from ASTEC’s vaccine mandate for employees because he could not provide a clergy letter supporting his request.

Under the consent decree, ASTEC will pay Rethwill $95,000 in monetary damages, revise its anti-religious discrimination policy, and provide mandatory training on the policy to personnel.

The consent decree announcement follows President Trump’s declaration of the protection of religious rights a priority of his second administration. See, e.g., Executive Order 14205—Establishment of the White House Faith Office.

In his February 12, 2025 Executive Order 14202-Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias, President Trump declared:

It is the policy of the United States, and the purpose of this order, to protect the religious freedoms of Americans and end the anti-Christian weaponization of government. …

My Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government or unlawful conduct targeting Christians. The law protects the freedom of Americans and groups of Americans to practice their faith in peace, and my Administration will enforce the law and protect these freedoms. My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified.

That Executive Order tasks all federal agencies to root out “anti-Christian bias” from the government.President Trump’s May 1, 2025, Executive Order On The Establishment Of The Religious Liberty Commission declares:

It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law.

The Justice Department warns other employers against violating their employees’ religious rights in its announcement of the consent decree. The announcement quotes Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division as warning:

When employees’ religious principles conflict with work rules, they should not be forced to choose between practicing their religion and keeping their jobs if a reasonable accommodation can be made. … Employer policies that rigidly restrict how employees can demonstrate the sincerity of their religious beliefs for religious accommodations are inconsistent with the breadth of Title VII’s protection against religious discrimination.

It also quotes U.S. Attorney Robert J. Troester for the Western District of Oklahoma as stating

No employee should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to keep their job. …

Employers must take care not to craft or apply policies that require employees to forfeit their religious beliefs or impose unreasonable conditions that question the sincerity of those beliefs.

Other recent Justice Department investigation and enforcement actions clearly signal the Administration’s policy of enforcing religious rights extends beyond employment.

On April 29, 2025, for instance, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the private lawsuit, Grace New England v. Town of Weare, alleging that the town violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by threating fines against a small home-based church and its pastor.

The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and State Department reportedly have ordered employees to report employees displaying “anti-Christian bias” as part of its effort to implement a sweeping new executive order on supporting employees of Christian faith working in the federal government.

Widely-reported investigations and announced cancelations of federal grants or contracts, efforts to revoke tax-exempt status and other actions against Columbia University, Harvard University and others signal Jewish and other religions also may fall under these protections and that private sector organizations also are targeted for investigation and enforcement. It remains to be seen how the Administration will handle other religious discrimination claims. However organizations also must manage exposures to private federal and state claims.

In response to these investigation and enforcement priorities, all covered organizations should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel about evaluating and managing their own exposures to open past, current and potential future religious discrimination claims.

These efforts generally should include a comprehensive review and update of current policies and training, as well as an evaluation of exposure from open religious accommodation or other religious bias exposures within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

For More Information Or Help

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these discrimination or other workforce, employee benefits, health care, risk management or compliance, or other challenges or developments, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, via e-mail or telephone at (214) 452-8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating in and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble AV-Preeminent (highest/top 1%) practicing attorney recognized as a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law recognized for her experience, scholarship, thought leadership and advocacy on religious and other discrimination in connection with her work with employers, health care and life sciences, employee benefits, insurance, education, technology, education, government contractors, and other highly regulated and performance-dependent clients.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized for her decades of leading edge experience on the design, sponsorship, administration and defense of employment and other services, employee benefit,, data and technology and other operations to promote legal and operational compliance, reduce regulatory and other liability and promote other operational goals.

Along with her decades of legal and strategic consulting experience, Ms. Stamer also contributes her leadership and experience to many professional, civic and community organizations. She currently serves as Co-Chair of the ABA Real Property Trusts and Estates (“RPTE”) Section Welfare Plan Committee, Co-Chair of the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and on its Annual Meeting Program Planning Committee, Chair Emeritus and Vice Chair of the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance (“TIPS”) Section Medicine and Law Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee. She also has served as Scribe for the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) annual agency meetings with the Department of Health and Human Services and JCEB Council Representative, International Section Life Sciences Committee Chair, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group Chair and a Substantive Groups Committee Member, Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair, as TIPS Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits Committee and Workers Compensation Committee Vice Chair, Tax Section Fringe Benefit Committee Chair, and in various other ABA leadership capacities. Ms. Stamer also is a former Southwest Benefits Association Board Member and Continuing Education Chair, SHRM National Consultant Board Chair and Region IV Chair, Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee Chair, former Texas Association of Business State, Regional and Dallas Chapter Chair, a founding board member and Past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, as well as in the leadership of many other professional, civic and community organizations. She also is recognized for her contributions to strengthening health care policy and charitable and community service resolving health care challenges performed under PROJECT COPE Coalition For Patient Empowerment initiative and many other pro bono service involvements locally, nationally and internationally.

Ms. Stamer is the author of many highly regarded works published by leading professional and business publishers, the ABA, the American Health Lawyers Association, and others. Ms. Stamer also frequently speaks and serves on the faculty and steering committee for many ABA and other professional and industry conferences and conducts leadership and industry training for a wide range of organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see http://www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press™

Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2025 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Trump Administration Enforcement Priorities Require Cautious Handling Of Religious Accommodation Requests | Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID, COVID-19, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, OFCCP, Real Estate, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Restructuring, Retaliation, Supreme Court, Training | Tagged: Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, employment law, Human Resources, Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Workforce Strategies For Avoiding Holiday Liability Hangovers

November 27, 2024

With this week’s Thanksgiving celebrations kicking off the 2024 year-end holiday festivities, wise businesses will proactively act to reduce the risk that their business will start 2025 with a post-holiday workforce liability hangover.

Responsibly managed, company-sponsored and other social celebrations and activities can promote team building, morale, goodwill and other rewards. However, holiday celebrations, staffing disruptions, behaviors and their fallout also can often create attendance, discipline, compliance, safety and other legal and operational responsibilities, risks and costs. Wise business leaders act proactively to mitigate these risks as the nation enters holiday season begins.

Health & Safety

Gatherings, food, game playing, toasting with alcohol, travel and other aspects of company-sponsored and off-duty celebrations can enhance usual or create new accident and illness risks. Holiday socialization, presentism, distractions, staffing disruptions, operational changes and other factors can increase illness and accident risks. Injuries and illnesses suffered on or off the job can create added occupational health and safety and worker’s compensation responsibilities, costs and liabilities, disrupt staffing and productivity, and fuel health care, medical leave, disability, worker’s compensation and other responsibilities and expenses long after the holiday season ends. To help workers enjoy the Holidays safely and avoid these business costs and disruptions, businesses should confirm that their occupational health, safety and injury policies, practices, and staffing fulfill applicable occupational health and safety and workplace accident and injury laws, as well as consider encouraging workers to follow good health and safety practices on and off the job throughout the holiday season.

Employers generally have a duty of care under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) and other occupational health and safety laws to provide a safe work environment. The OSH Act requires businesses to recognize and take appropriate steps to keep their workplaces safe. The OSH Act, worker’s compensation, leave and other laws. OSH Act and other workplace safety laws generally require employers to promptly report and investigate workplace accidents and injuries, ensure workers receive timely treatment, and trigger occupational injury and other leave and other duties.

Workplace injuries resulting from unsafe workplace conditions generally trigger expensive penalties and damages, in addition to worker’s compensation or other occupational injury coverage liabilities. The holiday season often exacerbates or adds to the ongoing challenges employers face in maintaining workplace safety and responding to workplace injuries and accidents. Some common sources of additional risks associated with the holiday season include decreased oversight from management holiday absences, heightened worker fatigue and distraction, demand-driven, vacation or illness-related understaffing, expanded use of temporary or contract staffing, and holiday season-associated intoxication. See Holiday Workplace Safety. OSHA offers various recommendations to aid employers in recognizing and managing heightened workplace safety risks during the holiday season. Keeping Workers Safe This Holiday Season. To mitigate their risks from workplace injuries and accidents caused by safety violations and associated violations of investigation, reporting, benefit and other requirements, business leaders should ensure that their organizations identify and manage these additional risks, as well as ensure appropriate staffing and other arrangements are in place to ensure timely response, investigation and reporting of any workplace accidents or injuries during the holiday season.

With outbreaks of the flu, respiratory illnesses and other communicable or infectious diseases that spread from person to person common during the holidays, and holiday gatherings heightening the potential for transmission of the flu or other contagious diseases, businesses also should consider their responsibilities under the OSH Act or other laws to manage contagious disease exposures and spread. For instance, health care and certain other industries may be subject to laws or regulations that impose specific requirements for preventing and responding to contagious diseases, many of which may have been added or changed since the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses should verify their policies meet or exceed current federal, state, local and contractual requirements as well as are designed to meet their business’ need to manage other contagious disease costs, absences and other disruptions.

Whether or not a business is subject to specific contagious disease management mandates, all businesses generally will benefit from reviewing and communicating their existing contagious disease and related leave and other workforce policies to workers and management to help protect their operations against the costs, operational disruptions and liabilities that often result from contagious disease outbreaks within their workplace. To enhance efforts to deter worker injuries and illnesses, businesses should consider using free resources like the Centers for Disease Control’s Healthy Habits to Prevent Flu and 8 Tips for a Safe and Healthy Holiday Season flyers, workplace posters, payroll stuffers and other communications to remind workers and their families to follow best safety and contagious disease prevention practices during the holidays.

Along with encouraging workers to stay healthy and safe during the Holidays, businesses should also consider providing documented reminders and take other steps to encourage workers to provide timely notice of illnesses and injuries and verify appropriate management coverage and arrangements to ensure that management team absences don’t disrupt the business’ timely delivery of Family and Medical Leave Act, occupational injury and other notifications, coverage for absences, provision of benefits, and other performance of other responsibilities in response to injury and illness reports despite holiday associated absences or hours of operation impacting the employing business or its responsible vendors.

Businesses also should verify their workplace safety, contagious disease and leave policies are designed and administered to prevent and mitigate exposure for unlawful OSH Act and worker’s compensation retaliation, disability discrimination against legally protected employees with chronic or other disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), denial of leave or other violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act leave, notice and other requirements; and ADA and other privacy and confidentiality laws.

Alcohol & Other Conscious Altering Substance Consumption

The increased prevalence of holiday season celebrations and vacations often fuels an increase in consumption of alcohol, marijuana, and other consciousness-altering substances. This consumption can fuel a host of risks and headaches for businesses. Businesses concerned about these risks should act proactively to mitigate these risks.

When addressing business-related alcohol consumption, many businesses will want to consider not only alcohol and other conscious altering consumption at business-related events as well as potential costs that may arise from off-duty excess alcohol consumption. Whether resulting from on or off-duty consumption, excess alcohol, marijuana or other conscious altering consumption, whether on or off duty, can undermine productivity, create attendance and discipline issues, and fuel a host of other risks even when it does not result in a specific accident or injury.

Impaired judgment from alcohol or other intoxication in the workplace or at other events often fuels or contributes to employees or others exhibiting or subjecting employees to inappropriate sexual advances or other discriminatory statements, violent behavior, suicidal behavior or other problematic conduct requiring workplace investigations and discipline.

Most businesses also recognize that accidents caused by alcohol or other intoxication at work or work-related functions create substantial liability exposures for the company under the OSH Act and other occupational safety laws, as well as to workers and any third parties injured by a drunken employee, business associate, client or guest.

Businesses risk “dram shop” or other claims or other liability if employees or guests impaired by alcohol or other substances consumed at company-sponsored or associated events or operating company vehicles or equipment injure others.

Beyond this third-party liability, businesses also may incur significant worker’s compensation, health or disability benefit-related benefit costs if an employee is injured or injures another worker in an alcohol-related accident.

The potential headaches are even greater where the business is a health care, education, automobile sales, trucking and other transportation, or another business subject to or that has voluntarily adopted specific drug and alcohol-free, drug and alcohol testing and other related regulatory or contractual requirements. Businesses subject to these requirements should ensure appropriate arrangements for timely drug and alcohol testing, reporting, and other compliance with these requirements during the holiday season to avoid regulatory or contractual penalties for noncompliance. Companies administering substance abuse testing must comply with applicable mandates while also ensuring that their processes incorporate appropriate protocols to comply with disability discrimination, accommodation and confidentiality requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See, e.g., ADA May Require Employers To Accommodate Employees Testing Positive For Legally Prescribed Medications

Also, because workers engaged in these industries generally risk loss of licensure, certification or other credentials required to perform their jobs for engaging in or failing to report certain alcohol or substance-related offenses or conduct, even off-duty consumption can create staffing headaches for an employer if a worker becomes temporarily or permanently disqualified to work as a result of a substance-related infraction. Consequently, businesses in industries affected by these heightened requirements have a heightened interest in educating and reminding workers to behave legally and responsibly when deciding if and when to consume alcohol or other conscious-altering substances.

Accordingly, virtually all businesses can benefit from encouraging employees to be responsible when consuming alcohol in both business and non-business functions and in planning and hosting holiday functions.

Businesses that serve alcohol at company functions or anticipate that employees will attend other business functions where alcohol will be served need to consider the potential liability risks that may result if the alcohol-impaired judgment of an employee or other guest causes him to injure himself or someone else. A company anticipates an employee or guest might consume alcohol at a company-sponsored or another business event and should adopt and enforce clear policies to prohibit and prevent individuals from over-imbibing and from driving under the influence. Many businesses also find it beneficial to suggest, require or offer at company expense alternate transportation for employees to use when leaving a company or business-related event where the employee consumed alcohol.

Businesses concerned with these liability exposures should take steps to manage the potential risks that commonly arise when employees, clients or other guests consume alcohol at company-sponsored events or while attending other business-associated festivities. To minimize these risks at company-sponsored events, many companies elect not to serve or limit alcohol consumed by workers and served to guests at company sponsored events and other business functions.

To help prevent intoxication from fueling inappropriate behavior at company celebrations where alcohol might be consumed or present, businesses, at a minimum, should remind employees that company policies prohibiting intoxication apply to company-sponsored social and business events. Some practical tips for hosting safe holiday gatherings include:

Management and other leaders should communicate expectations and set a good example.
Reduce opportunities for intoxication by prohibiting or restricting and monitoring the amount of alcohol available and served.
Offer a plentiful supply of a variety of nonalcoholic drinks—water, juices, sparkling sodas. Nonalcoholic drinks provide guests with alternatives to alcohol. They also may help counteract the dehydrating effects of alcohol, slow the rate of alcohol absorption into the body and may reduce the peak alcohol concentration in the blood.
Provide a variety of healthy foods and snacks. Food consumption can slow the absorption of alcohol and reduce the peak level of alcohol in the body by about one-third. Food can also minimize stomach irritation and gastrointestinal distress the following day.
Encourage guests to help keep each other safe by monitoring and assign a team to monitor attendees for potential overconsumption or other signs of intoxication. With appropriate pre-consumption notification to attendees, some businesses even require or encourage attendees consuming alcohol to take a breathalyzer test before departure to minimize the risk that an intoxicated guest will be arrested or involved in an accident after departing the party.
Help your guests get home safely by arranging reliable transportation by using designated drivers and taxis. Anyone getting behind the wheel of a car should not have ingested any alcohol.

Because holiday-associated alcohol consumption and other stresses also tend to fuel increased depression, domestic violence and other stress-associated behaviors, many businesses also find it beneficial to redistribute information about employee assistance programs (EAPs).

Businesses also may want to review the adequacy of existing health, disability, accident and dismemberment, group legal services and other benefit programs, liability insurance coverage and employment policies to protect and promote the company’s risk management and workforce coverage objectives. Businesses can experience unfortunate surprises if they don’t anticipate the implications of these provisions on their employment policies, leave and benefit, safety and other workplace programs and liability insurance and indemnification obligations and costs. Maintaining and reminding workers about policies regarding alcohol consumption or intoxication, accident and traffic offense notifications, privacy waivers, or other policies enhancing accident investigation and response, or other strategic policies can help deter and facilitate investigation and response to on and off-duty accidents or other risk-creating events.

Many employee assistance (“EAP”) health and disability programs incorporate special provisions affecting injuries arising from inappropriate alcohol use as well as offer coverage and benefits to aid employees and family members affected by mental health or substance abuse-related conditions. Changes in regulatory mandates and expanded enforcement of federal group health plan mental health and substance abuse coverage mandates make it important to ensure that employment-based health coverage complies with these requirements. Similarly, many businesses increasingly qualify for preferential rates or discounts on liability policies based upon representations that the business has in effect certain alcohol and drug use or other risk management policies and practices. Reviewing these policies now to become familiar with any of these requirements and conditions can also be invaluable in helping a business respond effectively if an employee or guest is injured in an alcohol-related accident.

Discrimination & Harassment Liability Risks

Businesses should also manage exposures to religious, sex and other discrimination risks linked with the holiday season.

Businesses should critically review their scheduling and other holiday season plans and practices for potential prohibited discrimination or other insensitivity. Businesses should use care to handle carefully requests for religious-based scheduling changes, particularly in light of changes in judicial precedent and regulations in recent years. Leave policies should disclose policies for scheduling and holiday leave clearly and include appropriate, updated policies and procedures for requesting religious accommodation. Companies also should consider seeking advice from legal counsel before denying a faith-based request for a schedule change in light of the latest guidance or recent court decisions precedent.

Business-sponsored or connected holiday or year-end parties, communications, gifts, and other December festivities and observances should be designed to reflect appropriate sensitivity to sexual harassment and religious and other cultural diversity risks. Businesses should exhibit sensitivity and alert their workforce to their expectation that members of their workplace exhibit respect and sensitivity to differences in religious practices and observances among their employees, business associates and friends. Management and other workers should use care to plan social gatherings to be inclusive and to accommodate differences in cultural, religious and other differences. Businesses also should be sensitive to the potential that workers of alternative faiths may feel discriminated against if holiday observances focus unduly on a particular religion to exclude their faith. Businesses also should use care to manage other discrimination exposures in the planning of holiday festivities, gift exchanges, and other activities. Businesses also should be vigilant in watching for signs of inappropriate patterns of discrimination in the selection of employees invited to participate in company-connected social events and off-duty holiday gatherings sponsored by managers and supervisors.

A good starting point is reminding employees, business partners and customers that the company expects employees, business partners and other guests to adhere to company rules against sexual harassment, religious and cultural and other inappropriate discrimination at company-sponsored and other gatherings involving other employees or business associates. Businesses also should remind employees that the company does not expect or require that employees submit to unwelcome sexual, religious, or other inappropriate harassment or discrimination when participating in parties or other social engagements with fellow employees, customers or other business partners and of the procedures to follow to report any concerning events. Even a simple e-mail reminder to employees that the company expects them to be familiar with and comply with these policies and can help promote compliance and provide helpful evidence if an employee or other celebrant steps over the line.

To enhance the effectiveness of these reminders, a business should consider adopting and sharing specific guidance to educate workers about its policies, including examples to illustrate company-sponsored and other off-duty holiday-associated activities of particular concern.

Businesses also should recognize that whether or not company-sponsored, the fraternization inherent in holiday parties and other celebrations where employees celebrate with other employees, clients, suppliers or other business associates can lower inhibitions and obscure the line between appropriate and inappropriate social and business behavior. With or without alcohol, some employees, clients or business associates may misinterpret the festive social atmosphere of holiday celebrations. Some employees, clients or business associates make unwelcome sexual advances, make sexually suggestive or other inappropriate statements, or engage in other actions that expose the business to sexual harassment or other employment discrimination, harassment or retaliation liability. To help deter inappropriate or risky conduct, businesses should consider providing reminders that company prohibitions and rules about sexual harassment, discrimination, fraternization and other inappropriate conduct remain in effect during the holiday season, including when planning or attending holiday celebrations or other events hosted by the business, business partners and clients, and even private management sponsored events and observances.

Gift Giving, Gratuities & Social Entertainment

The exchange of social invitations, gifts and gratuities during the holiday season or at other times throughout the year also can raise various concerns. Businesses should adopt and communicate clear policies and procedures governing both giving and receiving social invitations, gifts, and other benefits. Businesses should review applicable governmental regulations, contractual requirements, and customer and vendor policies for requirements that could impact the offering, receipt, reporting or other handling of gifts, social invitations or other activities. Businesses also should design policies to ensure that they collect and retain sufficient documentation from employees, officers, consultants, customers, and vendors to monitor compliance and other legal and operational risks associated with social entertainment, gifts, and other similar benefits, to report tax deductions and income arising from these activities appropriately, and to meet other compliance obligations. Businesses should review and update current business policies affecting social entertainment, gifting and other similar activities for opportunities to promote compliance and mitigate risks.

As with other holiday observances, all gifts, gratuities and social entertainment must adhere to applicable laws, regulations and company policies regarding bribery, conflict of interest or other inappropriate inducements or rewards. Companies should implement and enforce appropriate policies for the offering and provision of and recordkeeping and reporting of these perks.

Gifts, gratuities and entertainment practices also must not discriminate inappropriately based on sex, religion or other protected status and must reflect appropriate sensitivity to potential religious, sex, race, or other protected status. A business that anticipates workplace or work-connected private festivities might include white elephant or other gift exchanges may wish to specifically include a reminder to exercise care to avoid selecting a gift that may be sexually suggestive, insensitive to religious, cultural or other differences or otherwise offensive.

Businesses also should confirm that all applicable tax implications arising from the giving or receiving of gifts are appropriately characterized, documented and reported in accordance with applicable tax, referral, conflict of interest and other requirements.

In addition to ensuring proper tax documentation and reporting, businesses also need to ensure and retain documentation of the propriety of invitations, gifts and other benefits. Social entertainment and gift-giving activities intended to show appreciation or support marketing efforts can create significant legal or relationship risks if not properly tailored to avoid regulatory or contractual prohibitions or appearances of impropriety. Government contractors, government officials, health care providers, nonprofits, public companies and an amazingly broad range of other entities often must comply with specific statutory, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements affecting the giving or receiving of invitations, gifts or other preferences. An ill-conceived social invitation, gift, or other benefit that violates these restrictions may expose both givers and recipients to legal prosecution, program disqualification and other serious legal risks.

In addition to these externally imposed legal mandates, many businesses have established their own conflict of interest, social entertainment, gift giving or other policies to minimize the risk that employee loyalty or judgment will be comprised by gifts offered or received from business partners or other outsiders. Employees, officers and contractors of businesses maintaining these policies may face termination or other significant discipline for violating these requirements. Accordingly, businesses offering social invitations, gifts and other benefits to valued vendor or customer relationships risk must be sensitive to these organizationally imposed requirements.

Timekeeping, Performance, Attendance & Time Off

Businesses also commonly face a range of year-end timekeeping, attendance and time off, pay, compensation and productivity concerns. The winter cold and flu season and other post-celebration illnesses, vacations, and winter weather inevitably combine to fuel a rise in absenteeism and competing requests for time off during the holiday season. Improperly designed or out-of-date timekeeping and reporting, leave and attendance, investigations, privacy and other workplace policies can exacerbate management of these challenges and their costs. Further complications can arise when dealing with employees suspected of mischaracterizing the reason for their absence or otherwise gaming the company’s time off policies. Meanwhile, performance and productivity concerns also become more prevalent as workers allow holiday shopping, personal holiday preparations, and other personal distractions to distract their performance.

Managing staffing needs and tracking and administering timekeeping, overtime and other pay, paid and unpaid time off and other attendance, compensation and absence administration while maintaining compliance with legally protected or other legitimate requests for excused time off by employees can present major headaches for businesses and their management. Recent changes in federal, state and local paid and other protected leave mandates add additional traps for the unprepared. Businesses concerned with these challenges ideally will review their policies and practices to ensure their organizations have in place well-designed policies and practices concerning timekeeping, overtime and other pay, attendance and time off, productivity and performance that comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act and other compensation, timekeeping, leave, reporting, investigations, privacy and other federal, state and local laws. Businesses should exercise care when addressing productivity and attendance concerns to investigate and document their investigation before imposing discipline. Businesses also should ensure that their policies are appropriately and even-handedly administered. They also should exercise care to follow company policies, to maintain time records for non-exempt workers, to avoid inappropriately docking exempt worker pay, and to provide all required notifications and other legally mandated rights to employees taking medical, military or other legally protected leaves. In the event it becomes necessary to terminate an employee during December, careful documentation can help the business to defend this decision. The increasing prevalence of worker classification challenges by federal and state agencies and plaintiff’s attorneys also makes it important for businesses to take steps to require and preserve access to documentation be able to demonstrate compliance with these and other applicable legal obligations by staffing and other contract labor suppliers.

Timely Investigation, Notification & Reporting

Businesses faced with allegations of discrimination, sexual harassment or other misconduct or potential business liabilities arising during holiday seasons should also take steps to ensure that appropriate staffing and other arrangements to ensure their organization’s ability to promptly investigate, if necessary, take appropriate corrective action to address complaints or other concerns arising during the holiday season around management or other time off.

Delay in investigation or redress of accidents, discrimination or other concerns can increase the liability exposure of a business presented with a valid complaint and complicate the ability to defend charges that may arise against the business. Additionally, delay also increases the likelihood that a complaining party will seek the assistance of governmental officials, plaintiff’s lawyers or others outside the corporation in the redress of his concern.

If a report of an accident, act of discrimination or sexual harassment or other liability related event arises, businesses should take steps to ensure that management responsible for responding to these and other occurrences are property trained or otherwise supported to carry out these responsibilities in an appropriate, defensible manner as well as to provide timely notification as needed to any government entities, contract partners, insurers, agencies or other parties. Injuries occurring at company related functions often qualify as occupational injuries subject to worker’s compensation and occupational safety laws. Data breaches and various other events may trigger notification or other disclosure obligations to meet statutory, contractual or other requirements. Likewise, automobile, cyber, employment practices and other liability policies often require covered parties to notify the carrier promptly upon receipt of notice of an event or claim that may give rise to coverage, even though the carrier at that time may not be obligated to tender a defense or coverage at that time. Ensuring appropriate, timely response can play a critical role in promoting defensibility, mitigating liability or preserving coverage or indemnification rights.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance-related concerns, please contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

An attorney Board-Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer’s work focuses on helping management manage performance, legal compliance and operational risks.

For more than 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has advised businesses and business leaders about enhancing the effectiveness and defensibility of their operations using employment and other workforce and services management, employee benefits, compensation, performance management, contracting, Federal Sentencing Guideline and other compliance and risk management, investigations, and other legal and operational tools and solutions. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others with compliance with federal and state equal employment, compensation, health and other employee benefits, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment, privacy and data security, and other laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and other federal and state regulators.

Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters.

Her work, thought leadership and scholarship on helping organizations manage people, operations and risk have earned her recognition as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources like:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication, click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.

NOTICE: These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any particular situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves, subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation at any time, considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from using this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein. ©2024 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved.

Comments Off on Workforce Strategies For Avoiding Holiday Liability Hangovers | ADA, Civil Rights, compliance, Corporate Compliance, directors, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Leave, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, EEOC, Emergency, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, enforcement, family leave, FLSA, FMLA, FMLA, Fringe Benefits, health benefit, Health Benefits, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Leave, medical leave, Overtime, religious accommodation, Religous Discrimination, Risk Management, Safety, Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Worker, Workers' Compensation, workfirce, Workforce, workplace violence | Tagged: ADA, Discrimination, Drug Testing, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, employment law, Health Insurance, Health Plan, Health Plans, holidays, Human Resources, Labor, OSHA, Safety, workers comp | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

SCOTUS Makes Defending Job Reassignments Harder

April 18, 2024

Employers should carefully scrutinize job reassignments for possible sex or other prohibited bias in light of the Supreme Court’s April 17th ruling holding job detriment suffered from a discriminatory reassignment need need not be significant to be actionable.

The Supreme Court’s Muldrow v. City of St. Louis decision resulted from a Title VII lawsuit brought by Sergeant Latonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police officer against the St. Louis Police Department, challenging her reassignment as sexually discriminatory.

Muldrow alleged that she was transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed job in another department because of her gender. Despite maintaining her rank and pay, Muldrow’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were significantly altered. She filed a Title VII suit against the City of St. Louis, claiming that the transfer constituted sex discrimination with respect to her employment terms and conditions.

Muldrow appealed to the Supreme Court after both the District Court and the Eighth Circuit held that since the transfer did not result in a reduction to her title, salary, or benefits and only caused minor changes in working conditions, Muldrow’s lawsuit could not proceed. Those courts ruled Muldrow had to show that the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage.”

The Supreme Court disagreed. It ruled that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII only needed to show some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions, not that the harm was significant.

The ruling that proof of significant job detriment is not required for a reassigned employee to prove a job assignment discriminatory allows reassigned employee’s significantly more latitude to challenge reassignments as discriminatory. Consequently, employers considering reassignments of employees should carefully scrutinize the proposed changes holistically for any potential detriment that affected employees might use to demonstrate discriminatory job detriment. Additionally, employers also should carefully identify and document valid business, discipline or other defensible justifications for planned job reassignment before taking action to make the job reassignment. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of reviews and discussions regarding this analysis, employers generally will want to conduct this analysis with the guidance of a qualified attorney and within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Her experience includes extensive involvement advising clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination; EBSA, IRS, and PBGC employee benefit; WHD, CAS, Davis-Bacon and other federal and state wage and hour and other compensation; OSHA and other investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Comments Off on SCOTUS Makes Defending Job Reassignments Harder | ADA, Affirmative Action, Age Discrimination, Attorney-Client Privilege, citizenship, Civil Rights, compensation, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, HR, Human Resources, LBGT, national origin, Race Discrimination, RAISE Act, religious accommodation, Religous Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, sexual harassnrnt, Transgender | Tagged: civil rights, Discrimination, EEOC, job reassignment, reductions in force, Restructuring, title VII | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Prepare Defenses Against Rising Religious Discrimination Exposures

February 6, 2024

A newly announced religious discrimination settlement reminds employers of the advisability of reviewing and strengthening the defensibility of their grooming, dress code, scheduling and time off and other employment policies, practices and other procedures for applying, granting or denying religious exceptions, and other employment practices to defend against potential discrimination exposures in light of rising religious sensitivities, the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279 (2023) and emerging Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance and enforcement.

Religious Discrimination & Accommodation Under Civil Rights Act

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice, unless an accommodation would impose an undue hardship. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. It also prohibits:

Forcing an employee to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment;
Subjecting an applicant or employee to offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practice or other harassment that creates a hostile or offensive work environment or results in an adverse employment decision or other job detriment or certain other types of harassment, whether by the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer;
Workplace or job segregation based on religion including religious garb and grooming practices;
Failing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause a burden that is substantial in the overall context of the employer’s business taking into account all relevant factors, including the particular accommodation at issue and its practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of the employer; and
Retaliating against an employee or applicant based on good faith exercise of his right to be free from religious discrimination or cooperation in investigations or other protected activities.

The duty to provide religious accommodation applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee follows as part of the employee’s religious reasons such as wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress or hairstyles or facial hair. It also includes an employee’s observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments such as pants or miniskirts.

Under the Civil Rights Act, the obligation to provide religious accommodation generally applies unless the employer demonstrate that the accommodation of the employee’s religious beliefs or practices would cause undue hardship to the employer. The burden of proving an undue hardship rests on the employer, who must show that the accommodation burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business, taking into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodation at issue and its practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of the employer.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy confirms employers seeking to defend their denial of a request for religious accommodation must be prepared to prove granting the religious accommodation request would impose a significant burden on the employer, holding the defense of undue hardship requires proof a burden that is “substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business” “taking into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” Mere proof a a “de minimis cost” will not suffice. See also EEOC Notice Concerning the Undue Hardship Standard in Title VII Religious Accommodation Cases.

Blackwell Security Services Religious Discrimination Litigation Settlement

The settlement with Blackwell Security Services, Inc. (Blackwell) recently announced by the EEOC highlights the challenge employers should anticipate facing in defending a denial of an employee or applicant request for exception from a dress code, grooming or other employer policy for religious reasons.

On January 31, 2024, the EEOC announced Blackwell will pay $70,000 and provide other relief to settle the EEOC’s religious discrimination lawsuit that charged Blackwell wrongfully refused to accommodate a Muslim employee’s religious practice of wearing a beard in observance of his religious beliefs.

According to the EEOC, shortly after Blackwell hired the employee, a Blackwell supervisor told the employee that company policy required all employees be clean-shaven. When the employee requested an exemption from the policy to accommodate his religious practice, Blackwell told him to shave his beard or face termination even though the EEOC determined accommodating his religious practice would impose no cost or operational burden on the business. To avoid losing his job, the employee complied and shaved his beard, causing him significant distress.

Under the consent decree resolving the EEOC lawsuit, Blackwell will pay $70,000 in compensation to the now-former employee. Blackwell will also provide training to relevant management employees on federal laws prohibiting religious discrimination and will report any additional complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC for the decree’s duration.

Employee Religious Discrimination Risks Rising

The EEOC charge and lawsuit against Blackwell is one of a deluge of religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC in recent years. In fact, EEOC enforcement data shows that religious discrimination charges received by the EEOC soared from 2,111 in 2021 to 13,814 in 2022 while over the same period settlements rose from 146 in 2021 to 730 in 2022.

Religion-Based Charges (Charges filed with EEOC) FY 2013 – FY 2022
	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2015	FY 2016	FY 2017	FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021	FY 2022*
Receipts	3,721	3,549	3,502	3,825	3,436	2,859	2,725	2,404	2,111	13,814
Resolutions	3,865	3,575	3,736	3,827	3,997	3,653	3,001	2,570	2,080	7,453
Settlements	331	268	275	266	233	151	171	144	146	730
Reasonable Cause	168	116	139	121	119	282	123	103	59	60
Monetary Benefits (Millions)**	$11.2	$8.7	$10.8	$10.1	$11.2%	$9.2	$9.9	$6.1	$9.5	$12.8
The chart represents the total number of charges filed and resolved under Title VII alleging religion-based discrimination as compiled by the Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics from data compiled from the EEOC’s Integrated Mission System. This does not include charges filed with state or local Fair Employment Practices Agencies. EEOC notes, “In FY 2022, there was a significant increase in vaccine-related charges filed on the basis of religion. As a result, FY 2022 data may vary compared to previous years.” * Does not include monetary benefits obtained through litigation. See https://www.eeoc.gov/data/religion-based-charges-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-1997-fy-2022.

A number of factors have fueled the sharp rise in religious accommodation and other religious discrimination risks. Along with the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the high burden of proof employer must meet to justify refusing to grant religious accommodations to employees in Groff v. DeJoy, a series of religious accommodation guidance issued by the EEOC during and following the COVID-19 pandemic health care emergency and demands for religious accommodation exemptions to COVID-19 mask and vaccination mandates heightened awareness and the volume of religious discrimination claims filed with the EEOC. See, e.g., What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws. Unsurprisingly, charges from these COVID-19 related and other religious accommodation claims brought since the COVID-19 pandemic health care emergency has and continues to fuel litigation, settlements and judgements. See, e.g., Children’s Hospital Pays $45K To Resolve COVID Vaccine Religious Discrimination Suit.

The already heightened awareness fueled during the COVID-19 health care emergency has been further heightened by EEOC and other governmental guidance and outreach in response to rising potential religious and national origin discrimination concerns arising from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and various other international events. See e.g., Resolution of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Condemning Violence, Harassment, and Bias Against Jewish Persons in the United States; What to Do If You Face Antisemitism at Work; Anti-Arab, Anti-Middle Eastern, Anti-Muslim, and Antisemitic Discrimination are Illegal; Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities; Fact Sheet on Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities‘ Employment Discrimination Based on Religion, Ethnicity, or Country of Origin; Q&A for Employees: Responsibilities Concerning the Employment of Individuals Who Are, or Are Perceived to Be, Muslim or Middle Eastern; Q&A for Employers: Responsibilities Concerning the Employment of Individuals Who Are, or Are Perceived to Be, Muslim or Middle Eastern.

With these and other events continuing to escalate sensitivities and awareness of federal laws against religious discrimination, health care and other organizations should act to strengthen their ability to recognize and respond defensibly to religious accommodation and other religious discrimination risks whether arising from patients and other customers, employees or others.

Act To Mitigate Religious Discrimination Risks

In the face of the prioritization that the Biden Administration generally and OCR specifically is placing on religious and national origin in connection with the current Israeli-Palestinian hostilities, all covered facilities should brace for heightened oversight and enforcement by OCR the EEOC and other federal agencies, as well as private litigants. These organizations also should guard against retaliation liability, which can result even where the discrimination claim fails.

As a starting point, health care and other organizations should begin by reviewing their existing complaint history, policies, practices, training, reporting and investigation practices within the scope of attorney-client privilege and revise these policies as needed to strengthen their defensibility.

In connection with this review, health care and other organizations should ensure that their policies, procedures and notices clearly prohibit religious discrimination as well as communicate procedures for persons that believe their religious beliefs merit accommodation or otherwise believe they are subject to religious harassment or other discrimination to communicate their request to a representative of the organization appropriately trained to receive, evaluate and respond to the accommodation request defensibly. Most organizations will want to arrange for qualified legal counsel to be readily available to assist the responsible party with these activities.

Organizations should consider adopting carefully crafted and documented internal procedures for receiving, investigating and responding to religious accommodation request in a manner that promotes their organization’s ability to demonstrate each request is assessed in accordance with the law free from the inappropriate application of assumptions or stereotypes about what constitutes a religious belief or practice or what type of accommodation is appropriate. Organizations should train managers and supervisors to grant religious accommodation requests whenever possible and to refer any questions about the appropriateness or response to any religious accommodation request to the designated responsible party.

When faced with a request for a religious accommodation which the organization believes cannot be implemented without undue hardship, most organizations will want to seek the advice of legal counsel while exploring opportunities to allow the requested or an alternative accommodation on a temporary basis pending further exploration of the requested more permanent accommodation. Appropriate communication and documentation processes also are important. In addition, all organizations will want to ensure that their organization takes appropriate steps to prevent and defend against potential retaliation claims.

Due to the legal and political sensitivity of the practices and analysis involved, employers and others involved in the review of these policies and practices or their application when handling religious accommodation requests or other events raising the potential for religious, national origin, race or related concerns, employers also should consider involving experienced legal counsel about the circumstances, as well as to take advantage of the availability of attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary rules to help mitigate exposures and enhance the defensibility of their actions.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on employment, heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, retail, manufacturing, hospitality, and other organizations of all types and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with employment, employee benefit, compensation, worker classification, contracting, data privacy and security, Federal Sentencing Guideline and other governance and internal control and other rules specifically relating to workforce management, as well as industry and business specific internal controls and other performance management required to manage regulatory, contractual and operational compliance and risk management. Her experience includes decades of involvement advising and representing employers, educational organizations, health care organizations, and other businesses on Civil Rights Act and other federal, state and local discrimination laws.

Author of a thousands of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other medical record and data privacy and scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

For more information about Ms. Stamer, her legal, business and governmental relations consulting, training, public speaking or other services, experience and involvements , see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Prepare Defenses Against Rising Religious Discrimination Exposures | Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, EEOC, EEOC, Employers, religious accommodation, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination | Tagged: Civil Rights Act, Discrimination, EEOC, Employer, Employment, Groff, Isreal, National Origin Discrimination, Palestine, Religion, religious accommodation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Children’s Hospital Pays $45K To Resolve COVID Vaccine Religious Discrimination Suit

December 22, 2023

Pandemic’s End Doesn’t End COVID-19 Employer Headaches

Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc. (“CHOA”) is paying $45,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit arising from its failure to grant a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination requirements for a maintenance worker. The lawsuit highlights the continuing importance of all employers to use care when handling request for religious accommodation to vaccine or other workplace requirements.

The lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) arises from the 2019 denial of a request for a religious exemption to CHOA’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate made by a maintenance worker. CHOA previously had granted the same employee a religious exemption for vaccine mandates in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee working primarily outside and his position requiring limited interaction with the public or staff the EEOC said.

The EEOC alleged the denial of the vaccine exemption violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits firing an employee because of their religion and requires that employers reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of their employees.

Under the consent degree entered in Ciil Action No. 1:22-CV-04953-MLB-RDC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, CHOA will pay $45,000 in monetary damages to the former employee. CHOA will also adjust its influenza vaccine religious exemption policy to presume the exemption eligibility of employees with remote workstations or who otherwise work away from the presence of other employees or patients, and to protect the ability of such employees to seek alternative positions within CHOA if their religious exemption request is denied. The decree further provides that CHOA will train relevant employees on religious accommodation rights under Title VII.

The EEOC announcement of the consent degree alerts employers of the continuing need to use care when handling religious accommodation requests to vaccine or other workplace policies. “ It is the responsibility of an employer to accommodate its employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs,” the announcement quotes Marcus G. Keegan, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Unless doing so would require more than a minimal cost, an employer may not deny requested religious accommodations, let alone revoke those previously granted without issue. The EEOC is pleased that the employee has been compensated and that CHOA has agreed to take steps to ensure that it meets its obligation to evaluate religious accommodation requests in a manner consistent with federal law.”

Likewise, the announcement quotes Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office, as saying , “The arbitrary denial of religious accommodations drives religious discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC remains committed to enforcing the laws that protect employees’ religious practices.”

CHOA’s denial of the exemption happened at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal COVID – 19 vaccination mandates now are all ended. While federal mandates initially dictated COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of participation in Medicare by healthcare providers, for government contractors and others, the original mandates were quickly revised to include religious exemption requirements before court rules, agency action and the end of the Pandemic put an end to these mandates. During and after the federal mandates, however, employers were required to negotiate a minefield of competing concerns and potential liabilities when deciding what and how to mandate and enforce safety, leave and other rules without running afoul of employment discrimination and whistleblower claims. See, e.g., EEOC COVID Guidance, Enforcement Highlights Need To Brace For COVID-Related ADA & Other Claims; Texas Private Employer COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates Prohibited Effective February 6, 2024; IRS Warns Of Fraudulent Promotion of COVID Employee Retention Credits; OSHA Enforces Whistleblower Rights Of Worker Terminated For Expressing COVID-19 Safety Concerns; Biden-⁠Harris Administration Ending COVID-⁠19 Vaccination Requirements For Federal Employees, Contractors, International Travelers, Head Start Educators & CMS-Certified Facilities; SCOTUS To Hear Oral Arguments on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Enforceability On January 7; COVID-19 Vaccination Rule Injunctions Leave Employers With Significant Liability Challenges Even As OSHA Extends Comment Period on OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine ETS; Manage Heightened Retaliation Exposures Arising From COVID-19 Safety, Return-To-Work & Other Practices

While the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate is gone, many healthcare and other employers continue to impose mandate requirements with appropriate disability and religious exemptions as part of their workplace safety and patient safety protocols. Additionally, beyond the Covid – 19 vaccination protocols, many workplace vaccination and other rules also can create conflicts with certain religious beliefs that prompt religious accommodation requests.

Employers administering these vaccination, and other policies must keep in mind that the duty to offer religious accommodation and the EEOC emphasis on enforcing accommodation rights for workers whose deeply held religious beliefs conflict with workplace rules lives on. The perils remain, even if the requirement is supported by well, established patient or workplace safety protocols. Employers need to evaluate and be prepared to defend their inability to accommodate the safety and other concerns underlying the workplace mandate against a potential religious discrimination challenge.

Employers must remain diligent in their management of responses to request for accommodations keeping in mind that EEOC COVID-19 – era guidance imposes a heavy burden on an employer to justify its refusal of a request. For this reason, employers that receive a request for religious of accommodation from an employee should seek the advice of experienced legal counsel as soon as possible if any question exists about whether the employer will grant the request. Employers also should ensure their policies clearly communicate the availability of religious and disability accommodation from these other requirements, establish clear protocols for requesting and processing those requests and prohibit and prevent retaliation.

To promote defensibility, employers also should consult with experienced legal counsel about the use of attorney, client, privilege, and other protocols to prevent or minimize the risk that discussions and actions in response to, or following a request for accommodation creates evidence of discrimination or retaliation.

For More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on heath benefit and other healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. At her career, she has worked extensively with healthcare and other employers to manage discrimination and other workplace and employee benefit compliance and risks. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Comments Off on Children’s Hospital Pays $45K To Resolve COVID Vaccine Religious Discrimination Suit | Academic Medicine, Accommodation, ADA, Affirmative Action, board of directors, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID-19, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, health Care, health centers, health plan, Health Plans, HR, Human Resources, Insurance, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Managed Care, religious accommodation, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Risk Management, Worker, Workforce | Tagged: COVID, Health Care, religious accommodation, vaccine mandates | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Accommodating Client Racial Preferences No Excuse For Discriminatory Assignment Of Workers

July 31, 2023

A new federal lawsuit reminds employers customer preferences or demands cont justify discrimination based on race or other grounds prohibited by federal law.

Brooklyn-based home health company ACARE HHC Inc., doing business as Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency (“Four Seasons”) faces a race discrimination suit for allegedly removing home health aides from their work assignments due to their race and national origin to accommodate client preferences.

According to a lawsuit filed (EEOC v. ACARE HHC d/b/a Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care, 23-cv-5760), filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York on July 31, 2023, Four Seasons routinely acceded to racial preferences of patients in making home health aide assignments. The EEOC claims Four Seasons routinely removed Black and Hispanic home health aides based on clients’ race and national origin-based requests. Four Seasons would transfer aides to a new assignment or, if no other assignment was available, the aides lost their employment completely. The EEOC charges this alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race and national origin. The EEOC seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages for the affected employees, and injunctive relief to remedy and prevent future discrimination based on employees’ race and national origin.

The lawsuit, warns employers against resigning or assigning workers to accommodate racial or other prohibited discriminatory preferences of customers, or business partners. “Making work assignment decisions based on an employee’s race or national origin is against the law, including when these decisions are grounded in preferences of the employer’s clients,” said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.

The lawsuit is one of a plethora of enforcement actions by EEOC under the Bill den Administration’s prioritization of expansion and enforcement of discrimination and other workers’ rights laws.

In light of these efforts, employers should take immediate steps to update policies, postings, training and practices to ensure their ability to defend their compliance with race and other federal non discrimination laws.

For More Information

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about preparation of workforce, health care and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day to day operations, through times of change and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.

Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other and health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline and other management practices and actions.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Accommodating Client Racial Preferences No Excuse For Discriminatory Assignment Of Workers | citizenship, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, CROWN Act, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, national origin, OFCCP, Race Discrimination, Religous Discrimination, Sex Discrimination | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

EEOC Race Suit Showcases Rising Business Discrimination & Retaliation Exposures

March 29, 2023

A new race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against commerce remanufacturer PRC Industries (PRC) warns other businesses of the increased need to use care to protect their own organizations against employment discrimination and retaliation charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws given the heightened proactivity of the Biden Administration led EEOC in investigation and prosecuting these types of complaints.

PRC Race Suit

According to EEOC’s complaint in EEOC v PRC Industries, Inc. Corp, Case No. 3-27-2023 JJO-VSC, two Black workers, a married couple hired in January 2020 to work at PRC’s Reno, Nevada repair facility faced constant racial taunts and slurs, including the ‘n-word,’ from their supervisors, a brother and sister. The couple also observed the sibling supervisors routinely denigrating other Black employees due to their race. The complaint charges this conduct occurred openly, in front of co-workers and managers. Senior personnel, including a site manager and a vice president, failed to take adequate steps to curb the misconduct, despite being put on notice of the racial harassment. In late-May 2020, when the couple continued to report ongoing offensive treatment, they were fired via text message by one of the supervisors accused of harassment.

The EEOC charges this alleged conduct of tolerating racial harassment and firing the workers for complaining to the EEOC about it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits harassment due to race and requires employers to take prompt action to investigate and stop the misconduct after they receive notice of it.

The EEOC lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.

EEOC Enforcement Warn Other Businesses

The EEOC press release on the lawsuit warns other businesses and their leaders against committing or tolerating similar or other prohibited discrimination or retaliation.

“Leaders set company culture by the language and conduct they choose to tolerate as well as the behavior they model,” said EEOC San Francisco District Director Nancy Sienko. “Federal civil rights laws mandate that employers act promptly and effectively to stop race-based harassment, and the EEOC will hold employers accountable if they fail to meet their obligations.”

The PRC lawsuit is one of the latest in an accelerating civil rights and other employment discrimination and retaliation investigations, charges, and lawsuits the EEOC is taking in response to the proactive civil rights agenda of the Biden Administration.

In pursuit of its mission to advance equal employment opportunity, the EEOC focused on several major areas during FY 2022, including aggressive educational outreach, addressing systemic discrimination, advancing racial justice in the workplace, enforcing pay equity, and addressing the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions.

Among other things, the EEOC 2022 Annual Performance Report (APR) (“2022 Data”) shows EEOC has seen an uptick in complaints filed by workers. In Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022, the agency received 73,485 new discrimination charges, which represents an increase of almost 20% when compared to the previous fiscal year. The agency also handled more than 475,000 calls —an 18% increase from FY 2021—and managed 32% more emails from the public than the previous year.

To help manage the increased demand and strengthen the agency’s ability to prevent and remedy employment discrimination, the EEOC specifically focused on growing its workforce to meet growing requests for its assistance by filling 352 new positions and 500 total staff vacancies in FY 2022, the majority of which were in frontline positions.

The effects of this proactivity is confirmed by the 2022 EEOC enforcement data. The agency marked several significant accomplishments in FY 2022.

Obtained more than $513 million in monetary benefits for victims of discrimination, an increase from the previous fiscal year;
Resolved over 65,000 charges of discrimination.

Meanwhile in the federal sector, the EEOC:

Conducted more than 3,000 free outreach events reaching almost 220,000 individuals.
Resolved 9,336 hearings;
Recovered more than $132 million for federal workers and applicants; and
Significantly reduced the federal hearing inventory by 25% from FY 2021 to FY 2022

EEOC appears to be continuing its aggressive enforcement into 2023. In March, 2023 alone, for instance, the EEOC has announced the following discrimination and retaliation actions

These and other developments, send a strong message to businesses and business leaders to use their compliance and employment, discrimination and retaliation compliance, and risk management efforts. No b

In the face of these developments, businesses and their leaders should move quickly to audit, their current compliance and risk as well as manage their exposures.

In assessing pre-existing risk, businesses should take in to count the likelihood that compliance and operations may have been disrupted during the COVID healthcare emergency. Additional difficulties in investigating and defending risk also may arise because of turnover in management or other staffing. In light of these and other challenges, many businesses may wish to consider acquiring or increasing their employment practices liability as a backstop against these risks.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends employers, PEOs, staffing, employee leasing and other businesses about worker compensation, payroll and other tax, wage and hour and other compensation and employee benefit, occupational health and safety, contracting, compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. She also has decades of regulatory and other government affairs experience with these concerns including defending these and other businesses before the IRS, EBSA, WHD, EEOC, OCR, HHS, state labor, insurance, and other authorities, and evaluating and responding to federal, state and local statutory, regulatory and enforcement actions by federal and state legislators and regulators. A prolific author and popular speaker, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving, and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Comments Off on EEOC Race Suit Showcases Rising Business Discrimination & Retaliation Exposures | ADA, Affirmative Action, citizenship, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID-19, directors, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, national origin, Race Discrimination, Religous Discrimination, sexual harassnrnt, Transgender, USERRA | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Hospital Religous Discrimination Suit For Refusing To Exempt Worker Frim COVID Vaccination Warns Other Employers Denying Accommodation Risky

December 15, 2022

Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (CHOA), a pediatric healthcare system in Georgia, faces a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that charges CHOA violated federal law by firing a maintenance assistant for requesting a religious exemption to its influenza vaccination policy.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits firing an employee because of his religion and requires that employers accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless the employer proves accommodation would impose an undue hardship. EEOC COVID guidance warns employers of the EEOC’s interpretation of the continued applicability of Title VII’s religous accommodation requirements to employers enforcement of COVID and other vaccine mandates. Other related guidance also warns employers to avoid retaliation against employees for expressing religous objections to vaccination policies or engaging in other protected actions in violation of Title VII.

The EEOC’s suit states the maintenance employee, in accordance with CHOA’s procedures, requested a religious exemption to CHOA’s flu vaccination requirements based on sincerely held religious beliefs. CHOA previously granted the employee a religious exemption in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA changed its policy and denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee’s extremely limited interaction with the public or staff.

The EEOC asserts it would not have been an undue burden for CHOA to continue accommodating its employee as it had in 2017 and 2018. However it instead changed its stance on flu vaccination exemptions for this maintenance employee in 2019 and failed to consider any meaningful reasonable accommodations for his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Charging the refusal to grant accommodation arges this alleged conduct violates Title VII, the EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-4953 MLB RDC) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its conciliation process. The EEOC lawsuit seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination.

The suit against CHOA follows through on the EEOC’s commitment to investigate and enforce Title VII against employees failing to grant exemptions to otherwise applicable COVID or other vaccination requirements to employees with sincerely held religous beliefs against vaccination unless the employer proved undue hardship preventing the accommodation.

The lawsuit warns other employers with vaccination requirements to provide accommodations for employees with deeply held religous beliefs against the vaccine unless the employer can prove undue hardship sufficient to excuse the accommodation. The prosecution of the suit against a health care organization subject to the tightest vaccination and other COVID safety mandates under Centers for Disease Control, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Occuoatiinal Safety & Health Administration regulations demonstrates the high burden the EEOC expects employers refusing accommodation to meet. In light of these EEOC CHOA and other enforcement actions, employers should proceed carefully before refusing accommodation. As COVID and other pandemic and epidemic outbreaks continue to threaten workers, patient, customer and community safety, organizations must tred carefully and be prepared to defend the adequacy of their actions regardless of whether choosing to allow or deny accommodation from applicable communicable disease protocols.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.

NOTICE: Terms. These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Hospital Religous Discrimination Suit For Refusing To Exempt Worker Frim COVID Vaccination Warns Other Employers Denying Accommodation Risky | Accommodation, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID, COVID-19, Discrimination, Diversity, EEOC, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Employment Termination, enforcement, HR, Human Resources, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, OFCCP, Pandemic, Rehabilitation Act, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Retaliation, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

For More Information Or Help

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press™

Health & Safety

Alcohol & Other Conscious Altering Substance Consumption

Discrimination & Harassment Liability Risks

Gift Giving, Gratuities & Social Entertainment

Timekeeping, Performance, Attendance & Time Off

Timely Investigation, Notification & Reporting

For Help With Investigations, Policy Updates Or Other Needs

Other Helpful Resources & Information

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Religious Discrimination & Accommodation Under Civil Rights Act

Blackwell Security Services Religious Discrimination Litigation Settlement

Employee Religious Discrimination Risks Rising

Act To Mitigate Religious Discrimination Risks

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Pandemic’s End Doesn’t End COVID-19 Employer Headaches

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

PRC Race Suit

EEOC Enforcement Warn Other Businesses

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

Other Helpful Resources & Information

Email Subscription

Pages

Recent Posts

Archives

Share this blog

Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update