The Washington Supreme Court Mandates New Obligations for Employers Under State Law to Accommodate Employees’ Religious Beliefs

more+
less-

In a dramatic shift in Washington state law on accommodating religious beliefs, the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. recognized, for the first time, that the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) imposes an obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ bona fide religious beliefs. The Kumar decision overruled an earlier appellate court decision holding that the WLAD does not recognize a “failure-to-accommodate” theory for religious accommodations. Thus, the Kumar decision has recognized a state law failure-to-accommodate claim where none previously existed.

Facially Neutral Meal Policy Gives Rise to a Class Action Claim Under the WLAD for Failure to Accommodate Religious Beliefs

Gate Gourmet provides meals for train and airplane meal service. For security reasons, the company meal policy prohibited employees from bringing their own food into the workplace and from leaving the premises during their 30-minute meal breaks to obtain food elsewhere. Instead, the company provided two meal options to its employees — one vegetarian and one meat-based. Certain employees alleged that the company-provided meals contained ingredients they could not eat due to their religious beliefs. For example, certain employees alleged that the “vegetarian” meals were actually made with animal by-products, which violated their religious beliefs. Similarly, other employees asserted that for religious reasons they could not eat the beef-pork meatballs provided in the company meals. When the employees raised their concerns about the meatballs to Gate Gourmet, the company allegedly temporarily switched to turkey meatballs, but subsequently switched back to the beef-pork meatballs without notifying the employees, and then refused to make any additional changes to the company-provided meals. The plaintiff-employees filed a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging, among other claims, that the company’s meal policy violated the WLAD by forcing employees to either consume foods that violated their religious beliefs or go without eating during their meal breaks.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lane Powell PC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×