Monthly Archives: February 2010

UPS Pays $46,000 and Makes Policy Changes to Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

February 28th, 2010

More proof that religious discrimination lawsuits are on the rise and that the EEOC is stepping up enforcement. Last week shipping giant UPS agreed to settle a claim brought by a Rastafarian who was terminated because he refused to cut off his religiously mandated dreadlocks and beard. UPS is paying the employee $46,000 and has agreed to enter into a two-year consent decree to prevent further discrimination and retaliation.
Successful lawsuits by Rastafarians are rare because frequently someone who wears dreads will falsly claim, in an effort to avoid complying with a corporate grooming standard, that he is a Rastafarian just to not be forced to cut his hair. Religious beliefs must be “genuine” in order to become protected under Title VII, and many employers are doubtful about a Rastafarian’s genuine religious belief. (In fact, the blog is unaware of any other successful Rastafarian Title VII claim – so, way to go EEOC).

Posted in Racial Discrimination, Religious Discrimination | Comments Off

Posted in Racial Discrimination, Religious Discrimination | Comments Off

More Allegations of Religious Discrimination Against Abercrombie & Fitch

February 27th, 2010

For years the EEOC race discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch was one of the most talked about matters among employment lawyers. It seems the on-again off-again love affair between the EEOC and Abercrombie is on-again, or at least the signs of an early courtship have appeared.
This week a Muslim-American woman, working with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed an EEOC charge of discriminination against Abercrombie when she refused to not wear her religiously mandated hijab and when she ultimately was terminated for violating Abercrombie’s “look” policy. CAIR’s press release is here.
This past September, the EEOC actually filed suit against Abercrombie in Oklohoma on behalf of another Muslim-American who was refused a retail position because of her hijab. Both the September lawsut and new EEOC charge allege that Abercrombie’s “look” policy (which precludes head coverings) is facially discriminatory against observant Muslims, Jews and Sikhs.
Abercrombie’s “look” policy is not the only grooming manual to come under fire recently. As the blog reported earlier, Orlando-based entertainment giant Disney has twice been sued alleging that its “Disney Look” policy was facially discriminatory against Muslims, Sikhs and Jews.
As a practical matter, it is extremely difficult for employers to argue that an employee’s head covering violates a “business necessity” of the company or that it would frequire substantial resources to accommodate the head covering. In 2010, there is no morally or intellectually defensible arguement that someone who works at a Ft. Lauderdale cash register or greets new arrivals at an Orlando hotel must be denied the position due to a religiously mandated turbon or yarmulke.
Sarelson Law Firm has experience representing victims of religious discrimination by major publicly traded corporations. Are you afraid? Need to speak to someone confidentially?

Posted in Civil RIghts, Racial Discrimination, Religious Discrimination | Comments Off

Posted in Civil RIghts, Racial Discrimination, Religious Discrimination | Comments Off

More Proof that the EEOC is Stepping up Enforcement under Obama Administration

February 25th, 2010

In some ways the Obama administration has been a disappointment for not pushing for two major pieces of legislation — a much needed proposed amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act that would ban pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, consumer and health care contracts and a long overdue amendment to Title VII that would include sexual orientation as a “protected class” for employment decisions. The fact is most companies do not actually prefer arbitration to court, they just use the mandatory arbitration provision as a weapon to prevent meritorious claims without substantial monetary value from beng brought and to prevent new legal theories from being tested, and few Americans (even among conservatives) still hold an anti-gay bias.
Despite solid Democratic control of the White House and both houses of Congress, and relatively mild Republican opposition, the blog is unaware of any significant push for either piece of legislation.
But one cannot dispute that the EEOC, the federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws, has been getting aggressive. After a de facto hiatus that lasted for several years, the Miami District Office of the EEOC filed several lawsuits in 2009 throughout Florida. And yesterday, the San Antonio District Office sought a federal subpoena to seek documents from a company hit with an EEOC charge of sexual harassment and retaliation. Although the EEOC has subpoena power (including the authority to seek a subpoena prior to filing a lawsuit), it is rarely used (the blog is unaware of it ever being used prelitigation, but it probably has been) and most significantly, the non-compliant business served with the subpoena is a prominent nine-lawyer personal injury law firm.
At least for now you can’t accuse the EEOC of avoiding a big fight!