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, which encompasses the best way to ensure that you stay in the loop, and keep riding the wave of knowledge bombs that we drop here!

This blog is Part III of our continuing series on “Religious Accommodation Requirements.” In Part I, we explored 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. In Part II, we hammered on what a religious accommodation constitutes of and the requirements needed to qualify for one. Picking from here, we will move forward the discussion and cover other matters of intricate importance to courts when dealing with a religious exemption or accommodation claim, as Part III of this series.

Determining Whether Beliefs Are Sincerely Held

After a set of beliefs has been determined to be “religious,” the next process involves evaluating whether they are sincerely held. To do this, courts must strike a delicate balance between making sure that a person’s beliefs meet the prerequisites of a religion under Title VII and questioning the individual’s beliefs. If a person cannot demonstrate that beliefs are sincerely held, then an employer is not obligated to provide them with an accommodation. This issue underscores the fundamentality of the question of sincerity. On many occasions, courts have repeatedly held under Title VII, employers are not obligated to provide accommodations if it does not qualify as a sincerely held religious belief, but rather, is found to be one on the basis of a personal preference. This also implies that it is permissible for employers to question the sincerity and validity of a person’s religious beliefs and if possible show that their conduct in the past was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, these matter tend to get more technical because the failure of a person to sincerely hold particular beliefs or follow certain religious practices does not imply that they cannot do so in the future, particularly if they can attribute the change to a deepening or conversion in their faith and demonstrate the same before a court.

Nonetheless, it is crucial to understand that accommodation/exemption does not extend to personal preferences. In order to have a broader understanding of these issues, let us look at several examples where courts found that the employer did not violate Title VII when they did not provide employees with requested accommodation because the request was based beliefs that were not considered sincerely held religious beliefs, but rather on personal preferences:

Objection to Union Membership

In EEOC v. Union Independiente De La Autoridad De Acueductos Y Alcantarillados De P.R., 279 F.3d 49, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2002), an employer required an employee to join a labor union, but the latter objected since their faith (Seventh-Day Adventist) did not allow union membership. The court held that based on the fact that the employee (1) worked five days a week (instead of the six required by the faith), (2) took an oath before a notary upon becoming a public employee, (3) was divorced, (4) did not object to union membership until after rejecting the union’s accommodation of the employee’s specific objections, and (5) lied on the employment application, the employee acted in a manner contrary to his professed religious beliefs based on the evidence highlighted above, as to the sincerity of the claimed religious beliefs.

Location, time, and manner of accommodation

It is permissible for an employer to not grant an employee the right to make preparations for religious observances or to take leave, either paid or unpaid, in that regard, unless the person’s religion requires that a particular observance happen at a given location, time, and manner. In Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, 139 F.3d 679, 682-83 (9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit ruled that employees who felt compelled to leave their job to participate in a religious pilgrimage during an employee vacation blackout period is not protected by Title VII. The court found that since it was the decision of the employee, as opposed to being compelled by the religion’s practices, to make the pilgrimage at a given time instead of waiting for the blackout period of the employer, there was no conflict between the employment duties and the employee’s religious beliefs.

Exceptions to grooming policies

Since objection is based on less than credible religious grounds, employers are not required to make exceptions to the rules of their workplaces under Title VII. In Hussein v. Waldorf Astoria, 134 F. Supp. 2d 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), an employee’s objection to their employer’s grooming policy that required employees to be clean shaven was rejected by the court because the employee shaved his beard within three months, failed to provide an explanation why the religion prevented followers from shaving, and never wore a beard in the prior fourteen years’ of employment.

Stay tuned for Part IV of this series and always strive to be #UnusuallyMotivated. 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.