Discrimination - Religion Category Archives — Bay Area Employment Lawyer Blog Published by San Francisco Bay Area Employment Law Attorney — Oakland Workplace Discrimination Lawyer

New Year Brings a Longer Statute of Limitations But Proceed With Caution For Claims That Arise Before January 1, 2020

Published on: October 21, 2019 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

As employers across the country reckon with the impacts of the #MeToo movement, the California legislature and Governor Newsom took decisive action to extend the statute of limitations on certain workplace claims, acknowledging that those who have been targeted by discrimination, harassment, and retaliation do not always come forward immediately.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against California employees on a variety of bases. The FEHA provides some of the best employment protections in the country, and has been expanded several times over the years to afford additional protections in the workplace. However, one of the greatest hurdles to employees is the statute of limitations. In California, an employee has one year from the date of the unlawful practice to file a charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Failure to file a charge within the limitations period waives an employee’s rights to any claims she has under the FEHA. Further complicating matters is that the intake process at the DFEH has several steps and it has been unclear to employees as to when their charge was actually filed, and thus, whether they filed within the one-year period.

On Thursday, Governor Newsom signed AB 9 which extends the one year period to three years starting on January 1, 2020. The bill also specifies filing a complaint means filing an intake form with the DFEH and the operative date of the verified complaint relates back to the filing of the intake form- clarifying what has been a confusing issue for employees over the years. This new statute triples the time an employee has to file their charge, which is particularly valuable for those employees who feel they cannot come forward soon after the adverse employment action.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Employees’ Rights to Religious Accommodations

Published on: June 11, 2015 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. ____ (2015), the United States Supreme Court delivered the straight-forward rule that employers “may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

In this case, Abercrombie refused to hire a young Muslim woman named Samantha Elauf to work in one of its retail clothing stores because Ms. Elauf wore a headscarf. Abercrombie suspected that Ms. Elauf wore the headscarf in observance of her Muslim faith and simply did not want to accommodate the headscarf, claiming that it would violate the company’s “look policy” (which forbade employees from wearing “caps”). When the EEOC sued Abercrombie on behalf of Ms. Elauf for failing to make a reasonable accommodation for her religion, the company defended its actions by arguing that it did not “actually know” that the headscarf was a religious practice – it merely suspected that it was a religious practice. In other words, Abercrombie made the absurd argument that even though it actually believed the headscarf was a religious practice and the headscarf was indeed a religious practice, the company should nevertheless be allowed to discriminate against Ms. Elauf because Ms. Elauf did not specifically tell the company that the headscarf was a religious practice.

Luckily, the U.S. Supreme Court did not buy Abercrombie’s argument. The Court’s decision makes it clear that employers may not make employment decisions that are “motivated” by someone’s actual religious beliefs or practices, nor can it refuse to make reasonable accommodations for such religious practices, by simply claiming that the employee (or job applicant) never explicitly confirmed the company’s suspicions regarding their religious beliefs or practices.

U.S. Supreme Court Comes Down on Side of Religious Organizations’ Right to Discriminate

Published on: April 19, 2012 | Siegel LeWitter Malkani

It isn’t a great surprise that, when this U.S. Supreme Court jumped into the fray of cases determining when and under what circumstances a religious organization can discriminate against its employees, it favored the religious organization over the employee.

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. ___ (Jan. 11, 2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a judicial doctrine that lower courts have developed and entitled the “ministerial exception” prohibited an employee from bringing a claim for disability discrimination against the church. In particular, the Court held where the employer is a religious organization and the employee is a minister, there can be no claim for disability discrimination against the employer. The Court basically held that a religious organization is exempt from anti-discrimination law when it comes to its actions towards employees whom can be characterized as ministers. The Court relied upon the Free Exercise Clause, and found that this protected the actions of the church towards its ministers, regardless of the actions discriminatory intent.

Score one for religious organizations. However, it should be noted, that although this was the first time the United States Supreme Court spoke up on this issue, this holding has been already adopted by lower courts.