Several weeks ago, the EEOC secured a jury verdict of $150,000 in compensatory damages against an employer for failure to accommodate an employee’s religious objection to a workplace rule. But last week, the Sixth Circuit held that an employer need not provide its employee a religious accommodation if the requested accommodation violates federal law. These cases serve as a reminder that while an employer has certain obligations under Title VII to reasonably accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs, those obligations are not unlimited.
In Consol Energy, the company installed a biometric hand scanner to track employee time and attendance at one of its West Virginia mines. Employees who did not properly scan faced discipline. Beverly Butcher, an Evangelical Christian, informed his supervisors that he could not scan his hands, as doing so would give him “the Mark of the Beast.” Butcher suggested that he record his time manually, or use a time clock. Consol offered an alternative accommodation, allowing him to scan his left hand, palm up instead of his right hand, palm down. Butcher explained this did not eliminate his objection, and he retired in protest. Consol had allowed two employees with missing fingers to enter a “punch-in” number on the scanning machine instead of scanning their hands, but did not offer that accommodation to Butcher. The EEOC filed suit on his behalf.
The Northern District of West Virginia denied the company’s motion for summary judgment. Consol argued that providing the accommodation would be a hardship, since it had spent considerable resources installing the system, and manual time-keeping cost it millions in over-payment of wages. Consol further argued that it did not discipline Butcher, but instead he retired voluntarily. Finally, Consol argued that Butcher would not have accepted the “punch in” accommodation even if they had offered it. The court held there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not Butcher would have accepted the “punch-in” method, and whether or not Butcher’s retirement was forced by the implementation of the hand scanning system. After trial, a jury found the company had failed to accommodate Butcher, that Butcher was forced to retire, and that the accommodations Butcher requested would not have been an undue hardship. Accordingly, the jury awarded Butcher $150,000 in compensatory damages.
In Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., the Sixth Circuit held that an employer need not accommodate an employee if the only acceptable accommodation would violate federal law. Donald Yeager, a Fundamentalist Christian, disavowed his social security number when he turned 18 years old, believing that any identification number constitutes the Mark of the Beast. In 2012, Yeager applied for an internship with FirstEnergy but refused to provide any social security number. FirstEnergy refused to hire him, and Yeager sued for failure to accommodate his religious belief. Yeager argued that accommodating his refusal to supply a social security number would not have been an undue hardship for FirstEnergy.
FirstEnergy filed a motion to dismiss Yeager’s claim, arguing that the requirement to provide a Social Security number is imposed by law, not by FirstEnergy policy. Therefore, FirstEnergy could not be held to have instituted an “employment requirement” that conflicted with Yeager’s sincerely held religious beliefs. The District Court agreed, finding the IRS, not FirstEnergy, requires every employee to have a social security number. Additionally, both the employee and the employer face potential penalties from the IRS for not reporting the employee’s social security number. The Sixth Circuit upheld the court’s decision, holding that an employer is not liable under Title VII when accommodating an employee's religious beliefs would require the employer to violate federal law.
Both the Sixth Circuit decision and the jury verdict in Consol provide valuable lessons. Both employers engaged in dialogue early to find an accommodation for each employee. However, Consol erred in its refusal to offer Butcher the same “punch in” accommodation it had offered to disabled employees, assuming he would not accept it. Consol also held firm to its own hand-scanning policy, which the jury found insufficient to overcome Title VII’s requirement that such a policy yield in the face of a religious objection when a reasonable accommodation is available. FirstEnergy adhered not to a policy but federal law. Therefore, turning down Yeager’s application when he refused to provide a social security number did not constitute a failure to accommodate under Title VII.
