The Other Duty to Accommodate: Employees’ Religious Beliefs, Observances & Practices

Most employers are familiar with federal and state laws requiring them to reasonably accommodate an applicant or employee with a disability, unless the accommodation would result in an undue hardship. But federal law, and certain state counterparts, similarly require employers to make accommodations in other situations, such as in response to an employee’s religious beliefs, observances and practices,when requested, unless it would impose an undue hardship. Some recent cases highlight the unique circumstances in which this duty might arise. 

On November 19^th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that denied the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) application to enforce a subpoena against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS). In EEOC v. United Parcel Srvc., Inc., a UPS employee sought an accommodation from enforcing UPS’ rule that prohibited him from having a beard because of his Muslim religion. Additionally, an applicant claimed he was not hired because of the same policy. Both of the individuals filed charges with the EEOC alleging that UPS’ rule discriminated against them in violation of Title VII because of their Muslim religion. One of the complainants further alleged that UPS had a pattern or practice of refusing religious accommodations. Consequently, the EEOC sought nationwide information from UPS related to its rule prohibiting beards. The Second Circuit held that the EEOC was entitled to the nationwide information, in part, because it was trying to determine whether UPS has a pattern or practice of refusing religious accommodations.

Another national employer recently had to confront a similar issue. On October 23^rd, The Home Depot (HD) terminated a cashier for violating its dress code because he wore a button that said “One nation under God, indivisible.”  HD claimed that it had a blanket policy prohibiting all employees from wearing any pins or badges on their aprons that were not company-provided. The employee, through his counsel, perceives this as religious discrimination and plans on filing a discrimination charge against HD.

As these cases demonstrate, employers must exercise caution before taking any adverse action in response to any matter that is related to an employee’s religion, lest they fall into one of the legal pitfalls of Title VII or related state laws.

Written by Greg Bennett

2nd Circuit: Executive's Non-compete not Enforceable where Contract was Not Properly Signed

In an interesting case out of New York, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's refusal to enjoin an executive from working for his ex-employer's competitor where he had signed the contract in the wrong place an indicated an intention not to be bound by the Agreement. See Mintz Levin's Alert on the subject for more information on this case.

NY DOL Mandates Use of its Form to Notify Employees of Terms and Conditions of Employment

Amendments to New York Labor Law §195 obligate New York employers to notify new employees, in writing and at the time of hire, about certain terms and conditions of employment. Amended §195 also requires employers to obtain from each new employee a written acknowledgment confirming that he or she received the specified information. New York's Department of Labor has now mandated use of its form of notice and acknowledgment. See our alert here for more information.

What’s up with the Employee Free Choice Act?

What's up with the Employee Free Choice Act?  The short answer is… not much.
Most recently, in September, Sen. Arlen Specter described his work on a revised version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  Specifically, Sen. Specter stated that the revised version of the bill would drop the controversial card-check provision, which would allow workers to circumvent the secret ballot election process by getting their co-workers simply to sign pro-union cards.  Instead, the bill would shorten the time between the announcement that an election would be held and the election itself.  Union organizers would also be granted more access to employees during this period.
The revised bill would also modify the mandatory arbitration provision of the original bill, which provides that arbitrators would set the terms of the initial collective bargaining agreement if employers and new unions fail to reach agreement on a new contract within a few months following certification of a union as the bargaining representative.  Under the revised bill, there would be “last best offer arbitration,” whereby the arbitrator would impose the last offer made by either the employer or the union, in its entirety.
Since September, there has been little press concerning the EFCA and little public debate about the law. Unless, of course, you count a print ad, run by the AFL-CIO, featuring Mark Teixeira and other members of the Major League Baseball Players Association pitching the benefits of strong labor organization, or a rap song critical of the EFCA which is published on a site sponsored by the Associated Builders and Contractors and the Free Enterprise Alliance … 
Presumably Congressional and public attention will return to the EFCA when Congress finishes dealing with health care reform legislation.

Written by Martha