Religious, disability, and pregnancy discrimination cases can involve either or both of these situations. Depending on the facts, a plaintiff may win with one claim and lose on the other. There can be many moving parts to a discrimination lawsuit. If you feel you’ve been illegally discriminated against due to your religion, call Kingston Law Group to discuss what’s going on.

Failure to Accommodate

Under state and federal laws, some workers can ask for reasonable accommodations to help them with specific issues. Someone with a disability or pregnancy who typically stands all day may ask to be able to sit on occasion (for example) as a necessary and reasonable accommodation to perform an essential job function that doesn’t pose an undue hardship on the employer.

The employee would need to establish she’s pregnant or disabled and that the request is necessary due to her condition for her to perform her job. The types of accommodations are only limited by the employee’s disability, the kind of work they do, and what they need to safely perform that work.

Employees can also ask for a reasonable accommodation to practice their religious beliefs. This often comes up with a person’s schedule. They may ask for a day off for a particular religious holiday or that they not work a specific day of the week because that’s their sabbath or day of rest.

The employer could dispute the need for the accommodation or claim it would cause an undue burden on their operations. Both parties should discuss their needs and ways to meet them. In most instances, the parties should be able to work out an acceptable accommodation.

In 2023, the US Supreme Court clarified what employers must consider before deciding whether a requested religious accommodation presents an undue hardship. In the case of Groff v. De Joy, the Court stated that the employer needed to show more than a minimal (or de minimis in legalese) effort or cost to the accommodation before it could be considered an undue burden on their operations. They must show a substantial cost based on the employer’s resources.

Disparate Treatment

This type of case involves hiring, unequal terms and conditions of employment, discipline, and/or termination based on the person’s protected class (in this case, religion). The plaintiff could show they were discriminated against by establishing others not of their faith were treated better in similar circumstances, raising an inference of illegal bias.

This is usually done through testimony and personnel records of the plaintiff and their co-workers. Disparate treatment could be established by showing that while the plaintiff was disciplined for breaking one of the employer’s rules, for example, others not of that religion who broke the same rules were treated better.

To prove disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that they:

• Are a member of a protected class
• Were qualified for the benefit in question
• Were denied the benefit
• The benefit was still available after they were denied it

The plaintiff has the initial burden of producing evidence of discrimination that raises an inference illegal bias may be to blame. It’s then up to the employer to produce a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their actions. If they do so, it’s up to the plaintiff to debunk the employer’s story and establish that illegal discrimination caused the adverse employment action against them.

In a decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division last year, the court upheld a dismissal of a case brought by a former employee, Miriam Lax. She alleged Hackensack Meridien Health, Inc. fired her because she’s Jewish. The lower court dismissed the case before it went to trial, citing a lack of evidence to support her allegations.

The hospital stated Lax broke hospital rules and lied to her supervisor. She wasn’t allowed to work at home and evidence showed she routinely came to work about two hours late. Lax missed a morning staff meeting, claiming she had to attend another meeting at the hospital. But records showed she wasn’t there that morning.

The hospital provided evidence showing that other non-Jewish employees had been fired for similar reasons. Lax didn’t dispute being regularly late. She claimed she worked at home, which wasn’t permitted. The court stated that Lax didn’t have “any evidence” supporting her discrimination claim.

While employers have a higher hurdle to clear when claiming undue hardship justifies denying a request for accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs, it’s the same old same old for plaintiffs in disparate treatment cases. They have the burden of proving it’s more likely than not their religion was a reason actions were taken against them.

Has Your Employer Discriminated Against You?

Do you have questions about illegal employment discrimination or believe your employer took action against you because of your religion? If so, we will listen to your facts, explain the law, and suggest right and reasonable approaches for relief.

Kingston Law Group provides compassionate counsel and tough advocacy. We are ready to help you, your loved ones, and friends. Call us at +1-609-683-7400 or contact us online to schedule a near-term initial consultation at a reduced hourly rate. Call us today. You’ll be glad you did.