From Miletti Law®, the home of the #UnusuallyMotivated movement, we highly appreciate that you, our unusually motivated® readers, take the time to read our trustworthy & distinctive content that aims to keep you informed and educated about the diverse legal and non-legal issues that affect you or your businesses. As usual, our content is featured as videos that are posted on our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtvUryqkkMAJLwrLu2BBt6w and blogs that are published on our website WWW.MILETTILAW.COM. We highly encourage you to subscribe to the channel and sign up for the Newsletter on the website to experience, firsthand, the unusually motivating effect of the knowledge bombs we drop.

This blog is Part II of our new series on “Religious Accommodation Requirements.” In Part I of the series, we touched the hammock of the berg by providing the definition of religion as provided for under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the three-factor test (Fallon Test), which is used to determine whether or not a set of beliefs may classify as a religion or not, in line with Title VII’s paradigm. Picking from here, we would like to move forward the discussion and enhance your understanding of Religious Accommodation and what one requires to qualify for one.

“Religiousness” of Beliefs Test

In addition to the Fallon Test, the EEOC also provides its own test on whether a set of beliefs are classifiable as “religious” or not. However, although the test is different as compared to the one applied by most courts, the EEOC’s test helps to illuminate, for the purposes of Title VII and its definition, what beliefs are “religious.” Accordingly, as per the EEOC Compliance Manual § 12-I(A)(1), “religious” beliefs are defined to encompass ethical and moral beliefs as to what is wrong or right and which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.

It is comprehensible that the broad definition of “religion,” as provided for under Title VII, is the major reason many courts tend to rule in favor of coverage when resolving disputes. For this reason, there are limited grounds upon which your religious beliefs can be challenged by an employer. Nonetheless, there is consensus that as opposed to economic, political, or social philosophies, “religious” beliefs essentially entail concerns about purpose, life, and death. Under this context, courts have determined whether a set of beliefs meet the definition of religion in several landmark cases. Some of these include:

  • Universal Belief System is a religion – in Lorenz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36145 (W.D. Tex. May 24, 2006), the court held that an employee’s practice of “Universal Belief System” that emphasizes acceptance and tolerance of other person’s religious beliefs is covered under Title VII, irrespective of the fact that the employee was not aware of any other individual, other than their mother and themselves, who observed the belief system.
  • Onionhead may be a religion – the EEOC v. United Health Programs of Am., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217766 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2018) is an interesting example of a court’s ruling where while the judge imposed injunctive relief in a reverse case of religious discrimination, the jury awarded a number of plaintiffs substantial damages and attorney fees. The interesting aspect of this case is that while they complained that they were harassed by their employer for failure to adhere to the religious practices the employer sought to impose, the plaintiffs did not complain that they were harassed because of their own religious beliefs. Apparently, by inducing the plaintiffs and other employees to engage in practices consistent with an ideology known as Onionhead. Contrary to the employer’s claims that this was not a religion, the court held that Onionhead qualified to be classified as a religion because, while some of the documents the employer used in the workplace included one called “Onionhead Keys and Codes to Living Good,” indicia of religious aspects were apparent, among other things, as evidence of discussions about divine destinies, Satan, demons, spirituality, and God was found in email records. In line with the test mentioned herein, the courts determined whether (1) the beliefs are sincerely held, and (2) whether the beliefs are religious, as schemed by the believer.
  • Church of Wicca is a religion – the court found, in Van Koten v. Family Health Management, 955 F. Supp. 898 (N.D. Ill. 1997), that Title VII’s definition of religion aligned with an employee’s observance and adherence to the Wicca religion, whose religious beliefs encompass the beliefs that reincarnation, psychic abilities, and astrology are valid, Halloween was a holy day, and respect for all life forms.
  • Klu Klux Klan is not a religion – in past cases, such as Bellamy v. Mason’s Stores, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 1025, 1026 (E.D. Va. 1973), courts have ruled that the narrow, impermanent, and political nature taken by the proclaimed anti-Semitic and racist ideology of the Klu Klux Klan is inconsistent with Title VII’s definition of “religion.”
  • Creativity is a religion – in Peterson v. Wilmur Communs., Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1021-24 (E.D. Wis. 2002), a court has found that, although it has initially been ruled by other courts that Klu Klux Klan is not a religion, “Creativity,” whose central tenet is white supremacy, meet’s Title VII’s definition of “religion.”

In short, the question and answer whether a person’s beliefs align with the definition of “religion,” as provided for under Title VII, is a fact-specific inquiry that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis by employers.

Stay tuned for Part III of this series. In the interim, please reach out to us with questions and/or comments at the Contact Us page!

Always rising above the bar,

Isaac T.,

Legal Writer & Author.