Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? When It Comes to Religious Accommodation, the Supreme Court Offers Guidance (Well, Sort Of… )

08 June 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

What if it looks like someone may need a religious accommodation, but the individual never asks? Does the company still have a duty to accommodate? In a much awaited opinion, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, determined that “they never asked” does not necessarily let an employer off the hook. Employers subject to Title VII and many state and local laws are required to make reasonable accommodations to an employee’s or applicant’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business. The question the Supreme Court addressed was when and how should an employer realize it has the obligation to explore reasonable accommodation for religious belief or practices. The court’s answer provides some guidance for employers going forward, but also leaves many questions unanswered.

The case goes all the way back to 2008, when a 17-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a sales position at the company’s Tulsa, Oklahoma store. Ms. Elauf is a practicing Muslim and, consistent with her faith, she wore a headscarf or “hijab” to the interview. During her interview, she never mentioned her religion or that she wore the hijab for religious purposes. Likewise, the interviewer did not mention the hijab or ask about religion. Although the interviewer gave the applicant a favorable evaluation, the company ultimately did not hire her because she lacked the “look” as set forth in its “Look Policy,” which prohibited “caps.” This decision set off years of legal proceedings, culminating in the recent Supreme Court decision.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argued the case on behalf of the applicant and contended that because she wore the headscarf in keeping with her Muslim faith, the store violated the law by failing to explore modifications of its Look Policy. The store disagreed, countering that because the applicant never stated she wore a headscarf because of her religion and never asked for an accommodation, it had no duty to modify its dress code. Although the trial court found in favor of the applicant, awarding her $20,000 in damages, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that award, agreeing with the company that when a religious accommodation is not specifically requested, the company has no duty to provide one.

Last week’s Supreme Court decision rejected that argument. The court concluded that an employee’s (or prospective employee’s) failure to explicitly mention their religious beliefs or practices does not necessarily absolve an employer of the duty to explore accommodations. Instead in situations like the applicant’s — where the assistant manager admitted that she assumed the applicant wore a headscarf because of her faith — the company could not rely on the lack of an accommodation request as a defense.

While this ruling clarified the specific applicant’s situation, the Supreme Court left many questions unanswered, including:

  • Whether requiring strict adherence to the dress code would have constituted undue hardship on the store?
  • What types of accommodations should or could have been explored?
  • When is an employer deemed to have sufficient knowledge that a religious accommodation may be in play?
  • Can an employer ask further questions if they have reason to believe that religion may be an issue? If so, what types of questions? This is particularly important, because as a general rule, interview questions about religious beliefs are “off-limits.”

Although the case does not settle these questions, employers should take note of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion. Companies should not assume that because an individual does not ask, religious accommodation is not a concern. Specific steps you can take right now include:

  • Do not try to be a religious scholar — focus on job duties and business needs

When interviewing, focus on the candidate’s ability to do the job, not the specifics of religion. For example, if an employee says they need time to pray during the workday, ask questions involving what times of the day will be involved, whether there can be flexibility in times, and whether work can be made up during other times of the day.

Do not ask questions about the specific religious denomination that requires prayer, the Bible verses they believe require them to pray, or the name of the house of worship which they attend.

  • Treat all religions equally

When considering accommodations, treat all religions equally. If you accommodate a Sikh employee’s request to wear a beard for religious reasons, you will be hard pressed to rely on your grooming policies to deny a similarly situated Muslim or Jewish employee’s religious-based request to wear a beard.

  • Review your policies

As the recent case demonstrates, grooming and dress code policies raise particularly complex issues when it comes to religious accommodation. Employers should review seemingly neutral policies in order to ensure that there are no unintended pitfalls or barriers to religious accommodation.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Insights

PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.