Tag: Accommodation

U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST ABERCROMBIE & FITCH IN RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CASE

We reported last year that the U.S. Supreme Court was set to hear an appeal in a religious discrimination case commenced by Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman, in 2008. Elauf alleged that she was denied a salesperson position at an Abercrombie & Fitch children’s store in Oklahoma because she wore a headscarf during her interview, which ran afoul of Abercrombie’s “Look Policy.”

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision ruled that Abercrombie might have discriminated against Elauf on the basis of religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court was asked to determine if Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation for her head covering in order to sue Abercrombie. Although Elauf wore the headscarf to her interview, she did not explicitly ask for a religious accommodation to continue wearing it. The Court ruled that Abercrombie’s knowledge of Elauf’s need for a religious accommodation was not relevant; rather, only if the headscarf was a “motivating factor” in the Company’s decision not to hire her was important. Justice Scalia explained, “Motive and knowledge are separate concepts…An employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate [the law] even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.” As such, the Court reversed the lower court’s ruling in favor of Abercrombie and sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

In a statement issued by Abercrombie, the Company said that it has replaced the “Look Policy” with a new dress code that allows associates to be “more individualistic” and changed its hiring practices to not consider attractiveness.

U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIVES PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT IN UPS DRIVER CASE

The U.S. Supreme Court recently vacated the lower court’s decision that ruled in favor of United States Parcel Service in a pregnancy discrimination case. The plaintiff in this case, Peggy Young, sued UPS alleging that it discriminated against her under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). Young was a driver for UPS. After she became pregnant, she informed the Company that she would not be able to lift packages of a certain weight, upon the direction of her physician. UPS, however, told her that she would not be able to work with a lifting restriction and as a result, she was placed on unpaid leave and lost her medical coverage. Young later filed suit under the PDA and argued that UPS refused to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction.

Young argued that by not giving her the same accommodations that the Company gave to others who requested light duty, such as those who were disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, drivers who lost their driving certifications or those who were injured on the job, UPS violated the PDA by failing to treat pregnant women “the same…as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” In opposition, UPS argued that since not all employees were guaranteed accommodations under its policy, it was not discriminating specifically against pregnant women.

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejected both lines of argument, but stated that Young may be able to prove that the denial of an accommodation constituted disparate treatment under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The Court held that, “Young created a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from hers” and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The case is Peggy Young v. UPS, Inc., No. 12-1226.

This Firm will continue to monitor the developments in this case.

NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE SIGNS BILL PROHIBITING PREGNANCY-RELATED DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE

The New Jersey legislature has noted that pregnant women can be vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace.  There have been reports that women who have requested an accommodation due to their pregnancy-related needs or issues have been unfairly denied reasonable accommodations or have been demoted, terminated or placed on unpaid leave.

Recognizing the pervasiveness of this discriminatory treatment in the workplace, on January 21, 2014, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed into law Bill No. S2995 (substituted for A4486), which amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJ LAD”).  Effective immediately, this amendment now prohibits workplace discrimination against women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.  The law specifies that women affected by pregnancy should not be treated in a manner less favorable than other persons not affected by pregnancy.

  Moreover, the bill requires that an employer provide a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy-related needs when requested by the employee with the advice of her physician.  The law contemplates accommodations such as bathroom breaks or breaks for increased water intakes, periodic rest, assistance with manual labor, job restructuring or modified work schedules, and temporary transfers to less strenuous or hazardous work.  Note however, that similar to the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”), an employer will not be penalized for failing to provide an accommodation if the accommodation would cause the employer an undue hardship.