Employment Lawyer Blog

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.