Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Note: All legal cases cited are US Supreme Court Cases

I - General Principals

Included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are specific prohibitions on religious discrimination in public and private employment, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a; §§ 2000e, 2000e-2, 2000e-16, among many other circumstances.

Courts have recognized religious discrimination may be directed at religion in general, at a particular religious belief, or any particular aspects of religious observance and practice. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. at 532-33.

In addition, and particularly relevant here, is that Congress has allowed individuals with religious objections to certain forms of medical treatment to opt out of such treatment, 33 U.S.C. § 907(k); 42 U.S.C. § 290bb-36(f).

II - Unlawful Employment Practices

In Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Congress declared it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to (1) "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise . . . discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's... religion," as well as (2) to "limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's... religion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

III - Accommodations

Congress amended Title VII to define "religion" broadly to include" all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. at 74 n.9.

IV - Undue Hardship Standard

Ansonia Board. of Education v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 68, is the landmark case on ‘undue hardship.’  An employer may justify a refusal to accommodate only by showing that "an undue hardship [on its business] would in fact result from each available alternative method of accommodation." 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(c)(1). "A mere assumption that many more people, with the same religious practices as the person being accommodated, may also need accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship." Id. Likewise, the fact that an accommodation may grant the religious employee a preference is not evidence of undue hardship as, "[b]y definition, any special 'accommodation' requires the employer to treat an employee...differently, i.e., preferentially," US. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. at 397;  E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2028, 2034.  An Employer who contends that it cannot reasonably accommodate a religious observance or practice must establish undue hardship on its business with specificity; it cannot rely on assumptions about hardships that might result from an accommodation.