Employment Lawyer Blog

Last week, astronomer Dr. C. Martin Gaskell won a religious discrimination settlement of $125,000 against the University of Kentucky, pursuant to claims that the school passed him over for a research position because of his belief in divine creationism - essentially, that God created the universe.

Curiously, the University of Kentucky apparently confused Dr. Gaskell's view on evolution. As analysts at the website DailyTech.com pointed out, Dr. Gaskell is not strictly a biblical literalist or "intelligent design" proponent. Rather, he is a "theistic evolutionist." In other words, according to his written views, he apparently believes that a divine being set up the universe with discrete rules and also that the theory of evolution -- as is commonly understood by chemists, physicists, and biologists -- has serious flaws.

Rather than engage in long litigation, the University of Kentucky agreed to the six figure settlement with Dr. Gaskell. But as the analysis piece at DailyTech.com points out, it may not be too long before courts witness similar religious discrimination lawsuits against other academic institutions. The DailyTech.com article also raises this interesting question: "Can a university pass over a candidate who publicly (and vocally) turns their back on science in the name of religion, in a field unrelated to their work?"

Many astronomers, physicists, biologists, and other scientists are deeply religious, contrary to the popular stereotype of academics as agnostic/atheists. And, as Dr. Gaskell's story nicely illustrates, not all critics of the theory of evolution share the "intelligent design" perspective.

On a more practical note, individuals who feel like they have experienced some kind of religious discrimination at work or who've experienced racial discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation for complaining about abuse, or other mistreatment generally lack a practical understanding of their legal rights.

The law firm of Joseph, Hertzfield, Hester & Kirschenbaum can give you a complementary consultation to help you determine your best next steps. Connect with the team today at www.jhllp.com, or phone 866-348-7394 to get sound and responsible guidance about your claim.

34 year-old Alisa Dolinsky will receive $40,000, pursuant to charges of New York City religious discrimination, according to an article in the Associated Press.

The orthodox Jewish nurse applied to work at Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital on Roosevelt Island in 2007. Initially, the hospital offered her the nursing job, but rescinded their offer when Ms. Dolinksy stipulated that she would not work on the Jewish Sabbath (from Friday evening through Saturday evening). Since the hospital operates around the clock, seven days a week, administrators determined that they couldn't afford to hire Ms. Dolinsky when other applicants might be able to provide more complete coverage. The New York City Commission on Human Rights brokered the settlement, although the hospital did not admit any wrongdoing, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Cases of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and religious discrimination at work often serve as cannon fodder for employment blogs, pundits, and academics. This case, even in its condensed form, appears pregnant with interesting ethical questions. For instance, how long does a religious Sabbath have to be to constitute a serious inconvenience? If Ms. Dolinsky had been a member of another religion that required her to take off six days a week (and work only one day), common sense would dictate that she would not be an appropriate job applicant for the hospital. Conversely, what if she only had to take off half a day a week? Or a quarter day? Would that constitute a significant enough impediment to her working at the hospital? Where do you draw the line, time-wise?

The story also touches on a deeper discussion about work-life balance. Nurses and doctors are routinely expected to be available around the clock. This expectation is somewhat understandable. Accidents and emergencies don't wait. If city hospitals lack well-trained available employees, patients could die. But is it really fair to expect employees to be available to work around the clock? How many hours should medical residents be allowed to work? It's not just an issue of quality - after all, if you push someone to work, say, 110 hours a week, the quality of their work will obviously be negatively affected -- it's also a question of workers' rights. Is it really just to expect this level of service from medical professionals? And if not, what expectation is fair and just? And how would any such adjustments to current policies impact the efficiency of treatment and the quality of care?

It's interesting how this short story about Ms. Dolinsky's religious discrimination suit can raise all these fascinating and fundamental ethical questions.

But if you have been discriminated against at work, you're probably less concerned with the philosophical big picture and more concerned with questions like: "How can I hold my employer accountable?" "How can I get my job back?" and "What steps should I take to protect my rights?"

For a confidential and completely free first consultation about your situation, connect with the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com.

In a recent ruling out of an employment tribunal in Leicester, England, a doctor lost her religious discrimination case against her employer, the Northamptonshire Council Adoption Panel, after she abstained from voting on a matter she felt violated her religious beliefs.

Northamptonshire County Council's Adoption Panel was to vote on putting adopted children in homes run by same sex families. Dr. Sheila Mathews, a member of the panel, sought permission to avoid voting. After her request, the panel dismissed her. Dr. Mathews sued the panel for religious discrimination, claiming that her Christian beliefs prevented her from pairing adopted children with same sex couples. According to BBC reports, the ruling tribunal denied her employment discrimination claim. Judge John MacMillan said, "there is simply no factual basis for the claims." The judgment came after a 2-day hearing in the town of Leicester, during which Dr. Mathews expressed her belief that "Christian professionals, who seek to express professional judgment in the very best interest of children, are being silenced or discriminated against." With help from the Christian Legal Centre, she has asked the Leicester tribunal to refer her case to the European Court of Justice.

Dr. Mathew's position touched off heated debate among bloggers who follow employment discrimination, retaliation, and harassment cases.

Often "lightening rod" cases like Dr. Mathews's compel observers to challenge their fundamental thinking about the law and about the rights of employees. For instance, should a Muslim woman be permitted to wear her Hijab on patrol as a police officer? Should she be allowed this fundamental religious expression? What if a superior denies her this expression? Does that constitute religious discrimination? Under what circumstances is it appropriate for an employer to deny an employee request on "religious" grounds? The nuances can get ferociously complex. And the ethical - even the philosophical -- implications can take a while to tease out.

On a more practical note, if you or someone you love has been dealing with an issue of employer religious discrimination, harassment, retaliation, you can get excellent insight into your case by connecting with the attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Get a free consultation by calling 866-348-7394, or examine timely and free resources at www.jhllp.com.

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has filed a religious discrimination suit on behalf of Christopher Woodson, a Rastafarian who allegedly did not get hired as a mover because of his long dreadlocked Rastafarian hair.

According to an AP article, Woodson applied to work for Lawrence Transportation Systems in May 2008. But the company denied him a chance to be a loader because of their "grooming policies." According to a statement provided by the company's lawyer, "[Woodson's] hair was down to the middle of his back, and he was asked to get it cut to about shirt collar length." The attorney said that, since loaders work closely with customers, the official policy stipulates "that hair, facial hair, beards and general grooming must be neat, clean and trimmed." Hiring someone who looks like Woodson, in other words, would cause the company "undue hardship" and a loss of business.

The EEOC has counter-argued that Rastafarians "view growing their hair unbridled as a tenet of their religion." Therefore, the company's decision not to hire Woodson violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC wants Lawrence Transportation to pay for Woodson's back pay as well as pay punitive damages and recalibrate its hiring policies.

As this story illustrates nicely, cases of religious discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour violations, and retaliation can get quite complex. The law is full of nuances. And cases which may seem to be "straightforward" examples of employment discrimination or harassment may be far more layered than they initial appear to be in media reports.

To that end, if someone in your life has experienced workplace religious discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or another kind of mistreatment, it's worth your while to get an objective legal opinion about whether you have a case -- and, if so, about how you should proceed. Connect with the attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum today for a free consultation - dial 866-348-7394, or visit www.jhllp.com.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released a report on 2009 Muslim-American religious employment discrimination complaints: the agency found a disturbing trend. According to the data, in 2009, Muslims filed nearly 1,490 job-related discrimination complaints - marking the fifth consecutive year that this number has increased. Mark Benjamin, a reporter for Salon.com, talked to Arab-American Anti Discrimination Community Director Abed Ayoub about the trend line. Per Ayoub: "I am not the least bit surprised... the data just reaffirms what we see... employment discrimination is a priority issue."

In the Salon.com article, Benjamin points out that the EEOC's complaint numbers (from Muslims, regarding employment discrimination) spiked from 2000 to 2002, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. They went from just 557 in 2000 to nearly 1,500 in 2002. But after 2002, the number of complaints dropped precipitously, reaching a low in 2004 of 694.

So what can account for the near doubling in complaints from 2004 to 2009? Some analysts suggest that, perhaps, more victims of religious discrimination, harassment, and retaliation are feeling more comfortable making allegations. Other experts suggest that a wave of recent xenophobic sentiment may be driving the trend. In other words, perhaps de facto religious discrimination is on the rise in American workplaces.

Still other analysts believe that the trend may be tied into general economic malaise. For instance, social psychology studies show that when societies go through severe economic downturns (e.g. recessions, depressions, etc), xenophobia in said societies tends to increase. The most obvious explanation for this is that the disempowered workforce uses scapegoating as a means of deflecting feelings of frustration, anger and disempowerment.

In any event, if you or someone you care about has been the victim of religious discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, or any other kind of workplace mistreatment, you deserve solid legal input. Trust the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum to provide a confidential and no obligation consultation. Visit www.jhllp.com to learn more, or call the firm at 866-348-7394 to schedule your consultation now.

Religious discrimination against Muslim women wearing a traditional headscarf known as the hijab is a perennial problem, according to officials at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which reports that in the first three months of 2010, more than 40 women in separate incidences complained about discrimination as a result of their wearing hijabs.

For instance, a 19-year old named Naseehah Barlaskar claims that she was denied a job at a local McDonald's in Michigan because she insisted on wearing what her prospective manager called "that thing." In response to this allegation, a McDonald's spokesman issued the following statement: "McDonald's has a strict policy prohibiting any form of discrimination. These allegations are not consistent with our policies."

In San Francisco, a college student named Hani Khan sued a San Francisco clothing store owned by Abercrombie & Fitch. Khan alleges that her supervisors told her to remove her hijab in order to work at the store. She refused the instructions and was subsequently fired. Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to disputes about racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and other employment discrimination. In 2004, A&F had to pay out $50 million to a class of people who brought action via the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Although employment discrimination claims constitute the bulk of hijab-related discrimination complaints, the problem seems to be even broader in scope. For instance, CAIR reports that the Delaware DMV had to apologize to a 16-year-old driver's license applicant after a DMV clerk (inaccurately) told her that she could not wear her hijab in her driver's license photo.

Have you or a family member been victimized by religious or national origin discrimination while on a job interview or at work? If so, get a free and confidential consultation with the expert lawyers at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Go to www.jhllp.com to learn more about the firm, or dial (866)-348-7349 (toll free) to discuss your situation in confidence with a veteran employment discrimination attorney.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has weighed in on touchy, high profile allegations of New York religious employment discrimination related to the case of Debbie Almontaser, a former Principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, an Arabic-language public school.

The case has a complex back story, so put your reading glasses on and settle in:

Ms. Almontaser took over as principal of the dual language academy in 2007. Shortly after she took the helm, however, conservative opponents began to brand her as a militant Islamist. She denied the allegations, and independent sources confirmed her moderate political temperament. Nevertheless, a group called Stop the Madrassa Coalition formed and claimed that she was linked to a campaign to sell shirts bearing the slogan "Intifada NYC" -- a reference to a militant Islamic point of view.

Concerned, the Department of Education urged her to do an interview with the New York Post to put the allegations to rest. But the Post took Ms. Almontaser's interview out of context and quoted her "incorrectly and misleadingly" (according to federal judges who later ruled on a lawsuit she brought against The Post for doing this).

Nevertheless, the principal's connection with the Intifada tee-shirts sparked a wave of outrage that eventually led to her ouster as principal. She was moved to a subordinate position, which eventually disappeared. She sought legal action against the New York Department of Education for religious discrimination, and now that the EEOC has finally weighed in, this case could become even more newsworthy. The EEOC ruled that the DOE "succumbed to the very bias that the creation of the school was intended to dispel" and called for a resolution for Ms. Almontaser to get her job back as well as get $300,000 along with back pay and compensation for legal fees.

If you or a family member or friend has been on the receiving end of religious discrimination at the workplace, you may benefit from the counsel of an experienced employment discrimination attorney. Call (866) 348-7394 or visit www.jhllp.com to connect with the attorneys of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum. Our attorneys are experienced in labor law, and we've successfully handled many matters related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage & hour violations.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, July 21 that a claim brought by a former Catholic school employee (Wendy Ostlund) for age discrimination was not valid due to the fact that she had worked at a religious institution.

The court overturned the rulings of two lower courts by a razor sharp verdict of 4 to 3. The lower courts sided with Ostlund, who claimed that she had been terminated illegally during a 2002 downsizing.

The claimant's attorney expressed dismay at the ruling, claiming that the Supreme Court ignored a wealth of precedence that seemed to support the view that religious institutions must abide by fair employment practices for positions that are not ministerial and that are largely secular in nature. A Justice speaking for the Supreme Court's majority disagreed, pointing to Wisconsin's Free Exercise and Freedom of Conscious clauses; he suggested that these laws allow certain religious organizations exemption from some employment discrimination claims.

This case goes to show that, even when age discrimination or religious discrimination claims may seem supported by precedence, there is no predicting precisely how an appellate court may rule. That's why it is so important for claimants to retain top tier employment discrimination attorneys before moving forward with legal action. The good news is that, if you've been the victim of age, gender, or religious discrimination at your job, the attorneys of Joesph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum may be able to help. Book a confidential consultation with us today by phoning 1-866-348-7394, or learn more about the firm's capabilities, successes, and philosophy at www.jhllp.com.

Two prominent Colorado ski resorts, Keystone and Vail, have been ordered to pay $80,000 to a claimant named Lisa Cornwell, pursuant to charges of religious discrimination and sexual harassment at the workplace. Ms. Cornwell, represented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), had alleged that her supervisor at Keystone had harassed her based both on her religious practices/beliefs and her gender. Her boss, Rick Garcia, did not allow Ms. Cornwell to talk about her religion or listen to religious music at work; at the same time, Mr. Garcia did allow other workers to listen to music that contained profanities and lyrics that degraded women, which made Ms. Cornwell uncomfortable. In addition, the EEOC complaint against the Vail Corporation and Keystone Resort alleged that Ms. Cornwell had to tolerate untoward sexual jokes and had unfairly been denied shift priorities. Furthermore, when Ms. Cornwell contacted the EEOC about the abuse she had been receiving, Mr. Garcia terminated her in retaliation.

The EEOC alleged that the Vail Corporation and Keystone Resort had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, which mandates that employers accommodate the religious beliefs of their workers and which outlaws gender discrimination and retaliation at the workplace. The EEOC had attempted to reach an out of court settlement with Vail, but when negotiations broke down, the EEOC took the matter to trial. The Denver Field Director of the federal agency noted that religious discrimination claims like Ms. Cornwell's have been increasing over the past decade - up 80% from the late 1990s.

If you have encountered religious discrimination, gender harassment, retaliation, or other unfair workplace conditions, the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP may be able to assist you. Peruse our website, or contact us either via email or phone to set up a confidential discussion about your matter.

A Linden, New Jersey oil refinery owned by ConocoPhillips has settled a religious discrimination claim, MyCentralJersey.com reported May 29. The suit was brought by Clarence Taylor, a pipe-fitter at the Bayway Refinery who was forced to work Sundays for two months despite his requests for accommodation. The settlement in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit includes $7,500 and five extra vacation days for Taylor, $12,500 for a food bank Taylor selected and revised anti-discrimination policies and training for the refinery.

Taylor brought the suit after a 2006 schedule change forced him to work on Sundays for two months. He didn't want to miss church, where he was a deacon and lay leader, so he asked to change his schedule. The company refused and told him he could use his vacation time. He contacted the EEOC, which filed a religious discrimination lawsuit on his behalf. A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the company disagrees with the EEOC charges, admits no wrongdoing and offered Taylor a reasonable accommodation, but settled the case for business reasons.

Religious discrimination in the workplace is illegal under the Civil Rights Act, the same law that makes it illegal to discriminate according to race, sex and national origin. Among other things, Title VII of the act says employers must reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious practice, as long as it does not pose an undue hardship to the employer. That includes schedule changes to accommodate attendance at religious services, as long as it doesn't incur substantial extra costs or push particularly burdensome work onto co-workers.

Some people are surprised to find that Christians are covered by civil rights laws. In fact, the groups entitled to protection from religious discrimination are defined broadly in the law, including mainstream religions, uncommon and informal religions and even atheism, as long as the beliefs are sincerely held. Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP's religious discrimination lawyers represent people of all backgrounds and faiths in employment discrimination lawsuits. In addition to cases where a reasonable accommodation was denied, we represent people who were illegally forced to participate in religious practices as a condition of employment, subjected to wrongful termination, treated less favorably because of their faiths, retaliated against or denied the right to non-disruptive religious expression.

If you believe you're a victim of religious discrimination in the workplace and you're ready to fight back, call Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP. Based in New York City, our religious discrimination attorneys represent workers throughout the United States. For a free consultation, you can contact us through the Internet or call toll-free at 1-866-348-7394.

The case of Kimberlie Webb -- the Philadelphia Police officer whose department superiors disciplined her for wearing a hijab (a Moslem headscarf) while on duty -- took a new twist on April 12, when the Third Circuit Court rejected her last ditch appeal.

Background

Ms. Webb's case has stirred debate among religious discrimination scholars and ideological advocates alike. The situation began when she refused to remove her headscarf while on patrol; this act violated Philadelphia's City Police Directive #78, which prohibits on-duty officers from wearing religious symbols. Ms. Webb's supervisors reprimanded her in accordance with the regulation. To protest this response, she brought her complaint to the Philadelphia Police Commissioner. But although the Commissioner was himself a Moslem, he refused to exculpate her and instead ordered her suspended for two weeks.

Lawsuit and Appeal

Ms. Webb then filed a religious discrimination claim against the city, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in her legal argument. (Some case commentators who specialize in workplace discrimination theory objected to this strategy as imprecise. They argued that Ms. Webb should have filed a claim pursuant to the First Amendment.) In any event, the case was rejected. Ms. Webb then appealed to the Third Circuit Court, which upheld the decision of the lower court that the disciplinary actions taken against her were indeed legal and Constitutional.

Implications

The main reason Ms. Webb's seemingly reasonable request to wear religious garb on the job was denied has to do with a concept called religious neutrality. Basically, police officers are supposed to act as neutral enforcers of the law -- they cannot be seen as endorsing a certain religion by advertising its symbols (e.g. Moslem hijab, Christian cross, Jewish yarmulke). In other words, a law enforcement agent must play the role of a religiously neutral official, even if her personal convictions are strongly religious.

Indeed, even though Ms. Webb lost her religious discrimination suit, the fact that the Court denied her request can, in a sense, be seen as good news for advocates of freedom of expression, in that the Court explicitly valued this principle of religious neutrality as profoundly important.