Florida Employment Lawyer Blog

In Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood, the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment for the employer where a black, Muslim employee alleged a hostile work environment. The plaintiff alleged that co-workers encouraged him to "find Jesus," played Christian music on the radio and made derogatory comments about his Muslim faith. The court concluded that these comments, while unwanted and in poor taste, did not rise to the level of being threatening or humiliating and did not unreasonably interfere with the plaintiff's ability to perform his job. As a result, the working environment was not considered "hostile" as that term is used in employment litigation. The seven-page, non-binding opinion demonstrates the difficulty employees face when filing hostile work environment claims. It also demonstrates that importance of contacting an experienced employment attorney while you are still employed and while the hostile environment is ongoing. Employees generally have an affirmative obligation to report hostile working environments to management and human resources before it becomes a lawsuit.

Temporary staffing agencies are especially prone to employment lawsuits because they are frequently responsible not just for their own discrimination, but for the illegal employment practices of the companies that they place temporary workers with, i.e., their own customers. According to the EEOC press release, two Jewish brothers working at Administaff temporary placement agency in Baltimore were subject to harassing and illegal anti-semitic comments and conduct, including being thrown in a dumpster. The employees were deemed jointly employed by Conn-X, a Florida based company, and Administaff, the temporary staffing agency.

The result was not just a federal lawsuit and a significant monetary settlement, but the company was forced to enter into a consent decree that ensure that it alters its workplace environment to prevent any similar conduct from occuring in the future.

Sarelson Law Firm has experience in religious discrimination lawsuits and in crafting settlement agreements that provide both monetary and non-monetary relief.

According to a recently filed lawsuit in New Jersey, a Sikh-American who wears a Turban was denied employment as a sales representative with Tri-County Lexus in northern New Jersey. This blog has written repeatedly about companies with grooming or dress codes that prevent religious Sikhs, Jews and Muslims (and some Christians) from gaining employment. The lawsuit, filed in cooperation with the Washington, D.C.-based Sikh Coalition, was filed last week in the New Jersey Superior Court and was brought under state law only. The complaint is here:
Kherha v. Tri-County Lexus Lawsuit

Sarelson Law Firm is not involved in this matter but has represented three Sikhs denied similar employment.

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).

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?

Among the most common discriminatory employment practices that have spiked in recent years is discrimination against employees or prospective employees who wear a religious head covering (yarmulke, turban or hijab). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act require that employers make an effort to accommodate employees' and applicants' sincerely held religious beliefs. A "no head covering" policy, while seemingly innocous, will disproportionately hurt anyone whose religious mandates conflict with the policy, i.e., observant Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. Employers cannot and should not be able to dismiss an employee or prospective employee's request for a simple and reasonable accomodation.

The EEOC recently settled a $43,000 lawsuit against Ivy Hall Assisted Living in Atlanta when the company refused to permit a Muslim employee to wear a hijab.

Orlando based entertainment giant Disney has been sued twice for similar violations. Aicha Baha v. Disney World Co. (filed in 2004) concerned a Muslim woman who wears a hijab and Channa v. Disney World Co. (filed in 2008) concerned a Sikh musician who wears a turban.

The "best practices" for employers is to always allow religious employees to wear their normal religious articles of faith, unless it truly interferes with the workplace and is truly a financial burden on the company. It's illegal and morally wrong. Contact an experienced religious discrimination employment attorney as soon as possible to avoid or fix a problem.