Here at the Law Office of Vincent Miletti, Esq. and the home of the #UnusuallyMotivated movement, we take pride as a resilient and dependable legal services firm, providing such services in both a traditional and online, web-based environment. With mastered specialization in areas such as Employment and Labor Law, Intellectual Property (IP) (trademark, copyright, patent), Entertainment Law, and e-Commerce (Supply Chain, Distribution, Fulfillment, Standard Legal & Regulatory), we provide a range of legal services including, but not limited to traditional legal representation (litigation, mediation, arbitration, opinion letters and advisory), non-litigated business legal representation and legal counsel, and unique, online legal services such as smart forms, mobile training, legal marketing and development. Still, we feel obligated to enlighten, educate, and create awareness, free of charge, about how these issues and many others affect our unusually motivated® readers and/or their businesses. Accordingly, in order to achieve this goal, and as part of our continued commitment to you, we have committed ourselves to creating authoritative, trustworthy & distinctive content, which 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. With that, the ball is in your court and you have an effortless obligation 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 feel the positive impact of the knowledge bombs that we drop here!

As a resilient and dependable online legal services firm, we, the Law Office of Vincent Miletti, Esq., are thrilled to continue updating our series with more informative and exciting content. In that regard, this blog is part IV of our continuing series on “Religious Accommodation Requirements.” In Part I, we started nibbling the berg from the hammock 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 be classified 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. Moving forward to Part III, we extensively discussed the process of determining whether beliefs are sincerely held, which is a matter of intricate importance to courts when dealing with a religious exemption or accommodation claim. We also discussed the three circumstances, including “objection to Union Membership,” “location, time, and the manner of accommodation,” and “exceptions to grooming policies,” under which accommodation/exemption does not extend to personal preferences.

Accordingly, this blog moves the discussion forward by hammering on another issue of critical importance when it comes to the employer’s obligation to provide an employee with an accommodation. Before we dive into this issue, it is crucial to mention that Americans are entitled to enjoy a wide range of religious liberties and, thus, employers should be cautious when denying employees religious accommodations. As we mentioned in Part II of this series, the question and answer as to 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.

That being said, let us dive right into this issue!

Notice Requirement

One of the central elements of an employer’s obligation to provide a religious accommodation is “notice,” which should be considered in every sense of the term. It is assumed that it is not until the employer has taken notice of a person’s accommodation needs that the obligation arises. However, it is the applicant or employee’s obligation to let the employer know about the conflict between their religious beliefs and the work and, consequently, their accommodation needs. If you are an employee or applicant, is imperative to understand that your employer’s knowledge of whether or not you have any strong religious beliefs or convictions is not generally sufficient to put them on legal notice that you may need a religious accommodation. Thus, the burden of letting the employer know is entirely yours.

Further, it is critical to understand that where the employer has particularized, actual knowledge of the need provide a person with an accommodation because of their religious beliefs, there is an exception to the general rule that the duty to accommodate is not triggered by mere knowledge of an individual’s beliefs. For instance, in the case Hellinger v. Eckerd Corp., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1363 (S.D. Fla. 1999), one district court found that the employer had sufficient notice where, when an applicant was being considered for a pharmacist position, prior advice had been given to the manager that because of his religious beliefs, the applicant had previously refused to sell condoms.

In line with Heller, 8 F.3d at 1439, in order to enable the employer to understand the nature of conflict between the employer’s essential job functions and a person’s religious practices, the person only requires to provide sufficient information about their religious beliefs to the employer.

However, in line with another case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768, 135 S. Ct. 2028, 2032–33 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, with respect to the disparate treatment claim of a job applicant, an employer may be in violation of Title VII if they act with the motive to avoid the obligation to provide an accommodation, even if the employer has no more than an “unsubstantiated suspicion” concerning the need to accommodate the applicant.

In this regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that if an employer refuses to hire an applicant because of their need for a religious application (or if found that this was a motivating factor), the applicant will prevail on a disparate treatment claim irrespective of whether the employer actually knew that the applicant needed an accommodation.

In Part V of this series, we shall dwell on what the law says about an employer’s duty to engage the employee/job applicant in the interactive process.

Until then, stay tuned for more guidance and counsel, and strive to be #UnusuallyMotivated. In the interim, reach us out at the Contact Us page for answers to your questions and/or comments and business legal representation.

Always rising above the bar,

Isaac T.,

Legal Writer & Author.