Accommodation Rescinded:

Employer Pays $65K to End Lawsuit

After a national company rescinded an Ohio employee’s religious accommodation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stepped in on the worker’s behalf.

Here’s what happened, according to the EEOC’s lawsuit.

Accommodation Revoked

Charles Lynch was an employee for Wheeler Trucking, a nationwide automotive hauling and logistics company.

Lynch is Israeli and practices the Jewish faith.

He had an accommodation that allowed him to take Saturdays off to observe the Sabbath. Then Wheeler rescinded the accommodation, Lynch said.

He also alleged Wheeler subjected him to race- and religious-based harassment, including:

• likening him to a terrorist, and
• mocking his religious beliefs.

Lynch said he complained about the harassment multiple times during his employment, but Wheeler “did not make meaningful efforts to remedy the harassment or prevent future harassment.”

He said that after he complained, the problems got worse and ultimately resulted in him leaving the company.

EEOC Files Lawsuit

He complained to the EEOC, which filed a lawsuit on Lynch’s behalf.

In the EEOC’s view, the alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation, race discrimination and religious discrimination.

“Employers that fail to correct and prevent harassment must be held accountable,” Philadelphia District Office Regional

Attorney Debra Lawrence said in a press release. “The EEOC is committed to remedying and preventing harassment because of race and religion and to ensuring that employers do not retaliate against workers because they engage in protected activity.”

Ultimately, Wheeler agreed to pay $65,000 to Lynch to settle the lawsuit. In addition to the monetary payout, the consent decree:

• enjoins Wheeler from discriminating and retaliating against employees, and

• requires Wheeler to provide manager training and submit to

periodic EEOC monitoring.

2 Takeaways for HR

1. Handling accommodations properly

First, employers must accommodate employees’ religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

What exactly constitutes an “undue hardship” on the business? As you may recall, last summer the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the duty of employers to provide religious accommodation to employees under Title VII.

In Groff v. DeJoy, the Court essentially redefined the concept, establishing that “undue hardship” exists when granting an accommodation “would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business.”

Moreover, rescinding a previously granted accommodation, as alleged in this current case, can lead to legal repercussions if not handled properly.

Employment law attorney Christy Phanthavong of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP

previously discussed rescinding accommodations with HRMorning.

According to Phanthavong, if an accommodation “is no longer effective, has become unreasonable or creates an undue hardship, then the employer may rescind the accommodation. This will always be a fact-specific analysis and should involve a documented, interactive process between the employer and the employee.”

Moreover, Phanthavong says if an accommodation is rescinded, “the interactive process should include an analysis of whether a different accommodation would be effective and reasonable, and would not create undue hardship.”

In other words, if you decide to revoke an

accommodation, try to find a suitable replacement.

2. Handling complaints appropriately

Companies must take complaints of harassment seriously and investigate them promptly and thoroughly. Ignoring or mishandling harassment complaints, as alleged here, violates legal obligations under Title VII and damages company culture. 

It’s crucial for employers to train managers and supervisors on how to handle employee complaints of discrimination and harassment. Hint: A simple “knock it off” warning does not suffice.

Instead, managers should be trained to report the complaint to whoever at the company is tasked with dealing with such complaints, likely either HR, in-house counsel, according to employment attorney Joy Einstein.

Information provided by: HR Morning