Does the Equal Pay Act Apply to Charter School Salaries?

/

The Equal Pay Act is designed to make sure women receive equal pay for equal work. But income inequality continues to be a problem in workplaces across the country. In some cases, like in non-profit charter schools, teachers may not even know if they are covered. They may ask, “Does the Equal Pay Act apply to charter school salaries?”

In this blog post, I will review the recent complaint in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs. The Guidance Charter School, Case No. 2:18-cv-02323. I will explain the federal Equal Pay Act and California Fair Pay Act, which prevent gender discrimination in salaries and compensation. I will also examine whether those laws are affected when the employer is a charter school or other non-profit organization.

The Equal Pay Act Makes Gender-Based Wage Discrimination Illegal

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 work together to prevent gender discrimination at work, and on paychecks nationwide. Title VII makes it illegal to make employment decisions, including setting salaries, wages, raises, bonuses, and other compensation, based on an employee’s sex or gender. The Equal Pay Act makes it easier for employees to prove wage discrimination. It says discrimination happens whenever an employer pays wages at a lower rate than it pays to employees of the opposite sex doing equal work. Differences in pay must be based on a gender-neutral:

  • Seniority system
  • Merit system
  • Quantity or quality of production system
  • Differential system

When wage discrimination is found, the company is not allowed to solve it by reducing the wage of other employees.

Some states have even tighter gender discrimination laws. For example, the California Fair Pay Act, which took effect January 1, 2016, tightened existing equal pay laws by removing the requirement that the comparative employee work in the same establishment and changing “equal work” to “substantially similar work”. This allows employees to sue even if they are working at different locations for the same employer, or their job titles do not precisely match the comparative employee.

EEOC Says Provisions of the Equal Pay Act Apply to Charter School Salaries

The Equal Pay Act applies to public and private employees alike. Whether a person works for a government entity or a private company, he or she can still file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for wage discrimination. If the EEOC finds a violation of the Equal Pay Act, it will attempt to negotiate with the employer and then either file suit or give the employee a “right to sue” letter. This notice of right to sue allows a worker to hire a private wage discrimination attorney and take the matter to federal court.

Recently, the EEOC took up the case of a charter school employee. The EEOC sued the Guidance Charter School, of Palmdale, California, for violating the Equal Pay Act and Title VII gender discrimination laws. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (EEOC v. The GuidanceCharter School, Case No. 2:18-cv-02323). The complaint alleges that the charter school paid a female math tutor a lower hourly wage than her male coworker, even though their jobs were entirely interchangeable. The EEOC said the only difference was the employees’ gender. When pre-litigation conciliation settlement failed, the EEOC filed a complaint in federal court seeking back pay and liquidated, compensatory, and punitive damages on behalf of the woman, and an injunction preventing the charter school from discriminating again in the future.

“Ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work is one of the EEOC’s strategic enforcement priorities,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District. “There is no excuse for employers underpaying someone simply because of her gender.”

Non-Profit Status Does Not Affect Equal Pay Requirements

The question of whether the federal or state gender discrimination laws and the Equal Pay Act apply to charter school salaries most often comes from the schools’ non-profit status. Non-profit organizations historically pay their employees less than the same jobs in the private or government sectors. But that does not justify wage discrimination within the organization. Non-profit organizations, like charter schools, may not balance their budget unequally on the backs of their female employees. When they do, as with the Guidance Charter School, the EEOC and private gender discrimination attorneys can hold non-profits accountable under state and federal law.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our gender discrimination attorneys can help you end wage discrimination within your non-profit organization. We will work with the EEOC or file a complaint for you after you receive a “right to sue” letter, ensuring that you get equal pay for equal work. If you believe that you are being paid less than your counterparts because of your gender, contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to schedule a free consultation.

Tenure, Sexual Harassment and Bullying on Law School Campuses

/

Teacher-and-student relationships are one of the most frequent pairings in the media to portray sexual harassment and bullying. In real life, when a professor or dean of a law school targets his employees and students, even a Title IX complaint often isn’t enough to address the problem. Find out how tenure rules can interfere with civil rights claims for gender discrimination in law schools and universities across the country.

In this blog post, I will review an article by the American Bar Journal, “Why are law deans not fired after investigations find misconduct with women?” I will discuss how sexual harassment and bullying are addressed at colleges and law schools across the country and how tenure can interfere with schools taking appropriate corrective action to address sexual harassment and bullying by staff against employees and students.

3 Law School Deans Resign, But Aren’t Fired, for Sexual Harassment and Bullying

Since 2016, the legal community has been seeing its share of sexual harassment complaints. Judges, partners, and even law professors are being called out for their sexual misconduct toward subordinates, employees, and students. But as the American Bar Journal noted, these complaints often don’t have satisfactory results.

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit at UC Berkeley Law School

In 2015, Dean Sujit Choudhry, of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, was accused of sexual harassment by a former executive assistant. Tyann Sorrell said that from September 2014 to March 2015, Choudhry kissed her cheeks, hugged her, and rubbed her shoulders and arms, all over her objection. When she went to her supervisors, Sorrell says they didn’t try to stop the behavior, and instead retaliated against her.

Eventually, Sorrell had to sue the university, and Choudhry directly, for sexual harassment under Title IX Education Amendments of 1972. In March 2016, Choudhry resigned, calling the pending lawsuit a “distraction for the law school, the university, and our community.” Students on campus issued a written statement objecting to the law school’s response, saying a 10% salary cut for one year, counseling, and a written apology wasn’t enough, especially when the details were withheld from the student body.

Northern Illinois University Law School Dean Given Research Position After Sexual Harassment Complaints

Last summer, Northern Illinois University investigated sexual harassment complaints against its law school dean, Eric Dannenmaier. Two former employees filed complaints with the NIU Affirmative Action and Equity Compliance Department, saying Dannenmaier asked them intimate details about their love lives and sexual partners and invited them to his home after hours. Sarah Adamski, associate director of investigations for the NIU Affirmative Action and Equity Compliance Department found “enough information to conclude that Dannenmaier’s unwelcomed conduct of a sexual nature was severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile working environment….”

Dannenmaier was placed on administrative leave in February. He resigned on June 21, 2017. But that resignation was more of a reassignment. He continued to work as an off-campus researcher through December 31, 2017, earning a $95,000 salary.

Resignation Turns to Full-Time Employment at Northern Kentucky University

In late 2017, Jeffrey Standen, the dean at Northern Kentucky University’s Chase College of Law, resigned after the school’s Title IX coordinators investigated allegations of sexual harassment and bullying. Three employees – one full-time staff member and two student workers – filed complaints against Standen saying he looked down one employee’s dress, adjusted his crotch in front of them, asked for hugs, and commented on their clothing. They said when they would wear skirts, dresses, or leggings, Standen would ask them to arrange his bookshelves or fix a ceiling vent.

The Title IX investigation into these complaints did not result in enough evidence to support sexual harassment charges. But the report did show Standen had created an “unhealthy culture of fear, intimidation, and bullying” and violated the university’s ethical responsibilities policy. As a result, Standen resigned in December 2017. That resignation was short lived, however. He was offered a full-time faculty position the next year with a salary of nearly $222,000, making him the highest paid professor at the university.

Title IX, Tenure, Sexual Harassment and Bullying

Title IX is the portion of the Education Amendments of 1972 that applies to schools and universities. It is intended to prevent gender discrimination and sexual harassment on campus – including between faculty and other employees. The law requires schools to take reasonable steps to respond to sexual harassment complaints by staff and students alike. Each school must have a non-discrimination policy and a designated compliance officer to respond to complaints that faculty behavior has caused a hostile work or educational environment.

All three law schools described above performed Title IX investigations into the allegations of sexual harassment and bullying by their deans. But even where the investigators found a hostile environment, the harassers stayed on the payroll. When the American Bar Association looked into why the deans were not fired, the answer seemed to rest on the idea of tenure.

Saundra Schuster, an attorney at the NCHERM Group in Pennsylvania who does risk management work with universities told the ABA that there were two reasons why law deans don’t get fired for sexual harassment. First, it would cost more to defend a wrongful termination lawsuit than pay for a year of salary. Second, these are tenured faculty members, and as such are “almost impossible” to fire.

“Being a tenured faculty member is so ingrained in the hearts of faculty, particularly at high-level universities that would have law schools,” she told the ABA

According to Raymond D. Cotton, a partner at Nelson Mullins in Washington, D.C., who represents college administrators, tenure was created to protect professors’ free speech rights. His comments suggested that sexual misconduct was a result of stress the professors feel, rather than any form of power imbalance or culture of complacency. But Jennifer Drobac, a law professor at the University of Indiana’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law who studies sex harassment, says:

“The problem is that most universities don’t have the guts to terminate these people, typically men, who are engaging in this behavior,” Drobac says. “They will often rotate them out of administration and back onto the faculty.”

She takes the position that when tenured professors or deans violate the law by sexually harassing staff or students, they can and should lose their job. This is not a matter of free speech or protecting the controversial ideas of faculty, it is about responding to real complaints about sexual harassment and bullying on America’s law school campuses.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our sexual harassment attorneys help employees facing gender discrimination on the job, including on campus. If you are face a hostile work environment, we can help you make sure your complaints are heard. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to an employment discrimination attorney.

Do College Job Fairs Promote Age Discrimination?

/

Every year, colleges and universities across the country are gear up to connect graduating seniors with employers looking for entry-level employees. But what about those workers who didn’t follow a traditional path to employment? Do college job fairs promote age discrimination?

In this blog post I will explain how the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the protections available to older workers. I will review Villarreal v R.J. Reynolds, 839 F.3d 958 (2016), and a potential employee’s options and obligations in pursuing an age discrimination claim. I will also discuss how college job fairs and social media ads targeting college grads are being called out as promoting age discrimination.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act Protects Older Workers

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is designed to prevent discrimination against older workers. It prohibits employers from:

  1. Failing to hire or firing someone, or discriminating against him or her in terms of employment because of age
  2. Segregating or classifying an employee in a way that adversely affects his or her status as an employee because of age

Unlike other forms of workplace discrimination, the ADEA doesn’t automatically apply to all workers. To have a claim of age discrimination, an employee or potential worker must be at least 40 years old. It other words, it is not illegal to discriminate against a worker because he or she is too young, only too old.

An Aging Workforce Raises Hiring Discrimination Issues

The average worker is getting older. More people age 65 and over are staying on the job — 18.8% in 2016compared to 12.8% in 2000. For those older adults without stable employment, that can often create fear of age discrimination. The EEOC found that in 2016, 65% of older workers believed their age was an obstacle to new employment. The agency received 20,857 claims of age discrimination that year, and that number is likely to increase as the average age of workers continues to rise.

College Job Fairs and Targeted Social Media Ads Raise Age Discrimination Concerns

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other civil rights advocates have begun questioning whether the many common employer practices cross the line into age discrimination. Recruitment efforts like college job fairs and targeted social media campaigns restrict access to job postings and raise questions of access and discriminatory employment practices.

Companies coordinate with universities to hold meet and greets and conduct interviews that only their students can attend. Facebook allows employers to pay for “sponsored posts” that target particular demographics, limiting people who will see the post to, for example ages 18-24. But is that illegal age discrimination? The colleges and Facebook of course say it isn’t. After all, there is nothing prohibiting older adults from attending college. Just because a sponsored post or Facebook ad is targeted doesn’t mean it can’t be shared with older workers. But is that enough to defeat an age discrimination claim?

Villarreal v R.J. Reynolds and the Disparate Impact theory of Age Discrimination

There are two ways for potential plaintiffs to claim age discrimination happened:

  1. Disparate treatment says the plaintiff him or herself was treated differently because of his or her age
  2. Disparate impact says that an employer’s conduct indirectly affected an employee’s status.

Claims against college job fairs and social media campaigns generally fall in the second category because they are based on a theory that the older person lacked access to the same jobs. But in Villarreal v R.J. Reynolds, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that only current and former employees could use a disparate impact theory of age discrimination.

Richard Villarreal applied to work as a territory manager at R.J. Reynolds, through its placement contractor. He was 49 at the time. The placement description targeted a candidate “2-3 years out of college” who “adjusts easily to changes”. The contractor was warned to “stay away from” applicants with 8-10 years in sales. Villarreal said that these criteria caused him to miss out on the job opportunity, and the 5 other times he applied to the company. His attorneys argued that the placement description had a disparate impact on older workers who didn’t have access to the jobs.

The distinction between who can claim disparate treatment and disparate impact came from the statute itself. In another section, the ADEA applies to conduct that would affect a person’s “status as an employee or as an applicant for employment”. But when it comes to disparate impact, the law only applies to conduct “adversely affect[ing] his status as an employee.” According to the Court of Appeals, a potential hire doesn’t have a status as an employee, so Mr. Villareal could not sue under a disparate impact theory.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to review the decision. That means that potential workers claiming that recruitment efforts are illegal age discrimination will have to demonstrate disparate treatment, not just a disparate impact. For college job fairs, that will require a showing that an older potential worker was turned away or refused consideration, rather than simply showing a statistical probability that the tool recruits younger workers. The question of age-restricted social media posts could be stronger, but whether future plaintiffs will be able to demonstrate disparate treatment by social media companies or recruiters remains to be seen.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our employment discrimination attorneys we understand the realities of age discrimination facing older workers. When more senior job-seekers are passed over from jobs, we can help them investigate the circumstances, protect their interests, and file complaints with the EEOC or in federal court. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today for a free consultation.

EEOC Reconvenes Expert Task Force Against Workplace Sexual Harassment

/

The #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have drawn the nation’s attention to the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment. Now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken notice. It has reconvened its expert task force, first formed in 2015, to develop strategies to fight back against workplace sexual harassment.

In this blog post, I will discuss the work of the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. I will review the laws protecting employees from discrimination and harassment at work, and I will discuss previous actions by the task force to prevent workplace sexual harassment.

Workplace Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination Account for Nearly 1/3 of EEOC Complaints

Workplace sexual harassment and gender discrimination have been against federal law since Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law make it illegal for employers to make employment decisions based on a person’s sex or gender. When unwanted sexual advances occur in the workplace, the law says employers are required to take reasonable steps to stop and correct the conduct.

But simply having these laws on the books does not ensure a safe space for workers of all genders. That requires diligent enforcement. In 2017, the EEOC received 25,605 complaints related to sexual harassment and gender discrimination — over 30% of all the agency’s cases. That percentage has been consistent since 1997, even as the total number of complaints has varied over time.

2015 Task Force Asked How to Enforce National Anti-Discrimination Laws

In 2015, in response to the challenges in enforcing anti-discrimination laws and preventing workplace sexual harassment, the EEOC put together a Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. The Select Task Force was chaired by EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum and current Acting EEOC Chair Victoria A. Lipnic. Over the course of 18 months, this 16-member panel received testimony from over 30 witnesses and numerous public comments. Insights came from across the country, including testimony from social scientists, sociologists, psychologists, investigators, workplace trainers, lawyers, employers, and employee advocates. At the end of the investigation, the Select Task Force released its findings:

  • Workplace harassment remain a persistent problem
  • Three out of four victims of workplace sexual harassment don’t file a formal report
  • Businesses and workers benefit from preventing harassment, instead of simply avoiding litigation
  • Anti-harassment initiatives must start at the top and include accountability for management
  • Training needs to be focused on workplace culture and be tailored to each workplace
  • “Bystander intervention” and “civility training” methods may work better than other training alternatives
  • A nationwide “It’s On Us” initiative may be necessary to empower the victims of harassment

#MeToo and #TimesUp Movements Raise National Awareness

As it turned out, that nationwide push to for change in workplace culture didn’t happen because of a government-funded initiative. Instead, it came from social media. In late 2017, the hashtags #MeToo and #TimesUp filled Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms with the stories of sexual harassment survivors. They called for change in some of the biggest companies in the country, and in the federal government. And they drew attention to the long-buried truth that workplace sexual harassment can happen in any industry, and at any level within the corporate structure.

EEOC Reconvenes Its Special Task Force in Response to Public Demand

The EEOC responded to the public outcry for accountability by announcing that the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace would be coming together again on June 11, 2018. The meeting was called “Transforming #MeToo into Harassment-Free Workplaces” and was open to the public. EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum said:

“Our challenge is to use this #MeToo moment well. We have a road map given the work we have done at the EEOC. We have the attention and commitment of the range of different actors in society that we need. Together, we can channel that energy to create significant and sustainable change.”

The meeting brought together 8 panelists — all women — who spoke on different aspects of the problem, as well as potential solutions:

  • Elizabeth Tippett, of the University of Oregon School of Law, addressed legal issues and warned against responding solely to sexual harassment in the legal sense. She said “In doing so, [state legislators and employers] risk laying a foundation for the next crisis, whether it involves other forms of harassment, or discrimination and retaliation.”
  • Debra Katz, of Katz, Marshall and Banks, showed how legal defenses and loopholes within Title VII and state laws allow workplace sexual harassment to continue, at great cost to the individuals facing it on the job.
  • Kathleen McKenna, of Proskauer Rose, who represents employers, spoke about the use of arbitrationand non-disclosure agreements to reduce litigation of sexual harassment complaints.
  • Suzanne Hultin, with the National Conference of State Legislatures, talked about the legislative efforts at the state level to move “beyond federal regulations to prevent workplace sexual harassment.”
  • Jill Geisler, of the Newseum’s Freedom Forum Institute, described the Power Shift Project being used by media organizations and newsrooms to address sexual misconduct.
  • Kasey Nalls, of the union UNITEHERE, described the hospitality industry’s “Hands Off Pants On” campaign to protect hotel workers from sexual harassment.
  • Erin Wade from the restaurant Homeroom, demonstrated the color-coded alert system they developed for wait staff and managers to address harassing conduct by customers and create a safe workplace for staff.
  • Jess Ladd, of the non-profit Callisto, explained the online reporting and documentation platform her organization had developed to match victims of similar sexual harassment incidents together and connect them with legal advocates.
  • Lisa Gelobter, of tEQuitable, described her company’s independent platform to proactively address issues of bias, discrimination and harassment at work.

The Task Force also heard from other legal scholars and attorneys, and from an unnamed panelist who discussed strategies for employers and unions to promote harassment-free workplaces. All the panelists provided written statements, which are available on the EEOC’s website.

If the work done by the Special Task Force in 2015 is any indication, it may be some time before the public sees a result from the meeting and the witnesses’ testimony. But the hope is that by meeting publicly, and publicizing the witnesses’ statements, employers, unions, and employee advocates can start pushing for changes now that could prevent workplace sexual harassment in the future.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced gender discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys have decades of experience protecting the civil rights of women, minorities, and workers facing workplace sexual harassment. We use informal negotiation, arbitration, and traditional Title VII litigation to advocate for innovative prevention strategies to protect our clients and make their offices and work sites better places to work. Contact us to schedule a consultation.

Can a White Man Face Workplace Discrimination for Socially Conservative Views?

/

Most employment discrimination cases involve women, African Americans, or other minorities. But in the wake of social pressure toward diversity and inclusion, some are wondering if perceived left-leaning companies like Google have gone too far. Are efforts to diversify the office crossing the line into illegal workplace discrimination for socially conservative views? Are white men becoming the targets of discrimination and harassment?

In this blog post I will discuss the lawsuit filed by engineer James Damore against Google for alleged workplace discrimination against white men with perceived socially conservative views. I will explain how Title VII is applied in cases of discrimination against members of the majority and whether holding allegedly harmful gender stereotypes is a legal basis for firing.

Gender & Race Disparity in STEM Lead to Diversity Drives at Google

The tech industry has a problem with diversity. In 2017, Google reported its workforce was 69% male and 56% white. While Asian Americans are over-represented compared to the population as a whole, African Americans accounted for only 2% of the company’s workforce.

Among those who do get hired, minorities within STEM (science, technology, engineering & math) fields are far more likely to report discrimination than their white male counterparts. According to a recent Pew Research poll, 50% of women in STEM report experiencing gender-related discrimination at work. That number rises to 62% of self-identified black workers.

In the face of this reality, and media reports about workplace discrimination in the tech industry, Google committed to increasing diversity and training its employees about implicit bias. These efforts were designed to reduce workplace discrimination and increase diversity across the company.

White Male Engineer Says Google’s Diversity Drive Goes Too Far

After attending one of Google’s diversity trainings in August 2017, Engineer James Damore decided to voice his disagreement with the policy on the company’s internal discussion board. The 10-page memo, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” criticized the company’s efforts to increase diversity and claimed that women are biologically less able to work in the industry. The post created an uproar within the company, even causing the CEO to cut short a trip abroad to deal with the fall out. Google terminated Damore for violating policies through the post.

Now Danmore, and co-Plaintiff David Gudeman who left Google in 2016, say the company’s diversity policy “goes to extreme–and illegal– lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and male employees and potential employees.” In other words, in its attempt to prevent gender and racial discrimination against minorities, Danmore says Google committed the same wrong against members of the majority.

Are White Males Protected Against Workplace Discrimination?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for employers to make hiring decisions based on a worker or potential employee’s protected traits. The law protects against discrimination based on:

  • Race or color
  • Sex or gender
  • Religion
  • National origin

Age and disability are also protected traits under other federal civil rights laws. Title VII applies no matter which side of the racial or gender divide the employee sits. Members of majority classes like white men can file Title VII claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or in federal court, just the same as minority class members.

These lawsuits are often called “reverse discrimination”. They include cases where particular workers are singled out for belonging to the majority, as well as class actions that claim diversity actions adversely affect the rights of the majority. For example, on two separate occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered “reverse discrimination” claims that affirmative action policies kept white students from attending their universities of choice.

Reverse discrimination claims are not easily proven. Plaintiffs like Danmore and Gudeman must prove that workers of a different race or sex were treated more favorably because of that trait. They generally must also provide proof that the employer discriminates against historically privileged groups, and that adverse employment decisions were not based on other, conduct by the Plaintiffs.

Workplace Discrimination for Socially Conservative Views?

Danmore and Gudeman have another challenge ahead of them: their allegations are based less on the fact that they are white men and more on the idea that they faced workplace discrimination for socially conservative views. In other words, it wasn’t that Danmore himself was male, but that he felt women should be treated differently because of perceived biological differences. His attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, told the USA Today: “Currently in tech companies ‘it’s okay to disparage, smear, belittle or discriminate against conservatives and white men. That’s not acceptable.”

But political ideology is not a protected trait. While Danmore had a Constitutional right to express his political views in a public space, his private employer was not required to make space for his speech on the job. Danmore chose to use Google’s internal online bulletin boards and email lists to express his socially conservative views, rather than a public forum like Google+. All the company will need to do to defend its decision is show it terminated Danmore for violating lawful workplace policies against disrupting internal operations.

To be successful as a class action against reverse discrimination, Danmore and Gudeman will also have to demonstrate they were targeted because they were white, male, or conservative. Given the company’s hiring statistics, and the fact that it is simultaneously defending an Equal Pay Act lawsuit by female employees, that will be an uphill battle.

It isn’t impossible to to prove workplace discrimination for socially conservative views, particularly if those views are premised on a sincerely held religious belief. But given what is publicly known about the company and its hiring practices, Danmore’s efforts to fight back against Google’s diversity efforts seems unlikely to succeed.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced employment discrimination attorneys know how to work with Title VII and other civil rights laws to protect any worker facing a hostile work environment. We work with members of all different protected classes, including white males. If you have faced workplace discrimination for socially conservative views, we will meet with you to review your case and advise you of your options, and your chance at success. Contact us today to schedule a free initial consultation and get an honest assessment of your case.

Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Women Sparks Lawsuit Against Airline Support Company

/

Religiously observant Muslim women often face discrimination because their modest dress sets them apart. When religious discrimination against Muslim women hit an airline support company, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stepped in and filed a lawsuit to protect their right to religious accommodations.

In this blog post, I will review the complaint in EEOC v. Aviation Port Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-10909, which involves religious discrimination against Muslim women. I will discuss how Title VII applies to religion and requests for religious accommodations, and what employees can do if they face wrongful termination for their faith.

Airline Support Company Denies Muslim Women Religious Accommodations

Airline personnel have a very specific dress code. Aviation Port Services provides stewards, stewardesses and other staff to airlines from its location in Boston, Massachusetts. The company dress code required women who worked as passenger service agents to wear company-provided pants or knee-length skirts. However, the company employed six Muslim women whose religious practices included wearing modest dress. These women had previously been allowed a religious accommodation to wear long skirts while working, instead of the knee-length skirts or form-fitting pants.

But in late 2016, Aviation Port Services told these women that they would no longer be allowed to wear their religiously observant clothing. They again requested religious accommodation and objected to the change in policy. Then in January 2017, all six women were fired for not complying with the company’s uniform policy.

Title VII Prevents Religious Discrimination and Protects Religious Accommodations

Religious discrimination is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When a person’s sincerely held religious belief conflicts with company policy, that person is entitled to request religious accommodations. If the employer can make a reasonable accommodation without creating an undue hardship on the company’s business, Title VII requires it to do so. The law, like every state and federal anti-discrimination law, prevents employers from firing an employee in retaliation for filing a request for religious accommodation or complaining about religious discrimination at work.

When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reviewed the Muslim women’s religious discrimination complaints, it found reasonable cause to believe that Aviation Port Services had violated Title VII by removing their employees’ religious accommodations and then terminating their employment when they complained about the change in policy. On May 7, 2018, it filed a complaint on behalf of the six Muslim employees in federal court in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. EEOC New York Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein said in a statement:

“Employers have an affirmative obligation under federal law to make reasonable modifications to company policies, such as dress codes, to accommodate their employees’ religious practices. . . . Despite this obligation, Aviation Port Services simply refused to allow these women to continue working in attire consistent with their religious beliefs.”

Fighting Back Against Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Women at Work

When an employer insists on a discriminatory policy, it can force observant women to choose between their religion and their employment. But as EEOC New York District Director Kevin Berry said:

“Federal law is clear: employers cannot refuse to provide a religious accommodation barring an undue hardship, and employees have a right to oppose discriminatory practices without fear of losing their jobs.”

Fighting back against religious discrimination against Muslim women can include practical changes as well as money damages. Depending on the nature of the discrimination, and employees’ personal priorities, an employment discrimination attorney and the EEOC can help them seek:

  • Changes to company policy and practices
  • Religious accommodations that are not unduly burdensome on employers
  • Court ordered bars on religious discrimination at work
  • Anti-discrimination training for managers, supervisors, and coworkers
  • Back pay for employees terminated for not complying with policies that violate their religious convictions
  • Money damages for expenses related to finding replacement employment
  • Punitive damages for malicious treatment of religious minority employees
  • Attorney fees and costs related to litigation

Religious discrimination against Muslim women often forces them to choose between their sincerely held religious beliefs and company dress codes and other policies. When an employer refuses to provide reasonable religious accommodations, a skilled employment discrimination attorney can advocate on your behalf with the company, at the EEOC, and in state and federal court. You don’t have to tolerate religious discrimination at work. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our employment discrimination attorneys know what reasonable religious accommodations look like, and what it means to our clients when those accommodations are denied. Contact us today to explore your options and find solutions that respect your religious beliefs.