Category: Discrimination

Religious Objections to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Accommodating Religious Objections to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

On October 25, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated its COVID-19 technical guidance to address employees’ religious objections to vaccine mandates. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from religious discrimination. The law also grants employees the right to seek accommodations of their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances. Given the proliferation of legally mandated and voluntarily imposed workplace vaccine mandates, many employees have sought exemption from the requirement on religious grounds. While acknowledging that employers generally must consider employee requests for religious accommodations, the EEOC emphasizes that employees are not automatically entitled to an exemption based on a religion-based objection.

Click for more on “Accommodating Religious Beliefs in the Workplace”

Employee Requests

The new EEOC guidance confirms that an employee must ask for a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate before the employer must consider offering one. Employees do not have to use any “magic words,” such as “religious accommodation” or “Title VII,” but must affirmatively express a conflict between their religious beliefs and being vaccinated for COVID-19.

Support for Religious Objections

The EEOC confirms its historical view that employers should generally assume an employee’s asserted religious belief is valid. But, with a sufficient “objective basis,” an employer may question the religious nature or sincerity of an asserted belief. In that case, the employer may engage in a limited factual inquiry and seek additional supporting information.

Religious Nature

Religious beliefs may be distinguished from purely personal, political, economic, or social views. However, Title VII protects even nontraditional religious beliefs. If there is uncertainty as to why the professed belief is religious in nature, the employee may be asked to explain.

Sincerity

Usually, it is difficult to challenge the sincerity of an employee’s professed religious belief. However, evidence undermining an employee’s credibility can be evaluated. For example, the EEOC notes the following potentially relevant factors:

  • prior acts by the employee inconsistent with the professed belief;
  • whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for non-religious reasons;
  • timing of the request (e.g., following an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for non-religious reasons); and
  • other information suggesting the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons.

The EEOC cautions that an individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs can change over time. And “[a]n employer should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of the employee’s practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of the employee’s religion, or because the employee adheres to some common practices but not others.”

Undue Hardship

As with disability accommodations, employers need not grant religious accommodations that would pose an undue hardship. Nonetheless, employers are advised to “thoroughly consider all possible reasonable accommodations, including telework and reassignment.” What constitutes an undue hardship will vary between workplaces and potentially even between positions within the same organization.

The EEOC asserts that “[a]n employer cannot rely on speculative hardships when faced with an employee’s religious objection but, rather, should rely on objective information.” The following factors may be relevant in weighing an exception to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement:

  • nature of work location (indoors or outside)
  • type of work setting (solitary or group)
  • degree of interpersonal interaction
  • number of employees seeking a similar accommodation

Individualized Analysis

Employers should evaluate each religious accommodation request on its own merits. Thus, some employees with religious objections may be excused from the vaccine mandate while others are not.

In each case, an employer may consider:

  • type of workplace
  • nature of the employee’s duties
  • number of employees who are fully vaccinated
  • how many employees and nonemployees enter the workplace
  • the number of employees who would need a particular accommodation

An employee’s personal religious beliefs may affect what accommodations are possible for them compared to others.

Alternative Accommodations

Employers are not limited by the specific accommodation an employee seeks. They may consider any reasonable accommodation that would resolve the conflict between the vaccination requirement and the employee’s sincerely held belief without causing an undue hardship. If more than one accommodation meets that standard, then the employer should consider the employee’s preferred accommodation. But the employer retains the right to choose the accommodation granted even if different than the employee’s preference.

The EEOC suggests, “If the employer denies the employee’s proposed accommodation, the employer should explain to the employee why the preferred accommodation is not being granted.”

Reconsidering Accommodations

The EEOC notes that the accommodation process is a “continuing obligation that takes into account changing circumstances.” Both employee religious beliefs and workplace conditions could change.

Of particular note, the technical guidance confirms that “an employer has the right to discontinue a previously granted accommodation if it is no longer utilized for religious purposes, or if a provided accommodation subsequently poses an undue hardship on the employer’s operations due to changed circumstances.”

The EEOC suggests that, as a best practice, employers should discuss any changes (and potential alternatives) with the affected employee before revoking a previously granted accommodation.

Uncertainty Remains Unavoidable

This recent EEOC guidance offers some clarification for employers facing the difficult challenge of responding to employees’ religious objections to vaccine mandates. Unfortunately, however, the emphasis on a case-by-case analysis leaves each situation open to interpretation. As a result, employees who don’t get the accommodations they seek may pursue religious discrimination claims under Title VII or similar state or local laws. A wave of such litigation is likely, no matter how careful employers are in evaluating these requests. Thus, you should review these requests with an experienced employment lawyer before taking final action that may upset an employee.

 

Follow Horton Law on LinkedIn for the latest news and updates on COVID-19 compliance, vaccine mandates, and other topics of interest to New York employers.

2020 EEOC Charges

2020 EEOC Charges Continued Trump Administration Trend

Employees filed fewer discrimination claims with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in fiscal year 2020 than any year since at least 1992. The COVID-19 pandemic might have contributed, but the 2020 EEOC charges continued an annual decline seen throughout Donald Trump’s presidency. Should we expect more charges with President Biden in the White House?

FY 2020 EEOC Charges

The latest annual data refer to the 12-month fiscal year ending September 30, 2020. The EEOC received 67,448 charges of employment discrimination during this period. The charges span several federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Pay Act, and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA).

More than half (55.8%) of the charges included a retaliation claim, often in addition to claims based on other protected characteristics.

Here is the percentage of total charges that asserted discrimination based on those other characteristics:

  • Disability – 36.1%
  • Race – 32.7%
  • Sex – 31.7%
  • Age – 21%
  • National Origin – 9.5%
  • Color – 5.3%
  • Religion – 3.6%
  • Equal Pay – 1.5%
  • Genetic Information – 0.7%

Totals exceed 100%, as charges can allege more than one category.

Harassment charges, which can be based on any protected characteristic, also continued to fall in FY 2020. Of the total EEOC charges filed last year, 24,221 (35.9%) included a harassment claim.

Sexual Harassment Charges in 2020

Claims of sex-based harassment fell to 11,497, down 11.9% from the FY 2018 peak sparked by the #MeToo movement. That number includes all charges alleging harassment based related to one’s sex (treating people of one sex less favorably than others). The EEOC separately tracks harassment of a sexual nature.

Charges alleging harassment of a sexual nature also fell to the lowest level in many years. The EEOC received 6,587 such charges in FY 2020, down 13.4% from 2018, and 17.1% from 2010.

Trends Since 2016

FY 2016 ended September 30th of that year. Donald Trump was elected in November 2016, and became President on January 20, 2017.

Total EEOC charges fell each year of the Trump Administration, after fluctuating but staying relatively flat during President Obama’s two terms.

EEOC Charges During Trump Administration Graph

EEOC Charges During Obama Administration Graph

What’s Going On?

One reasonable conclusion from the data is that the EEOC was less receptive to employee complaints under President Trump. Note that we are looking at charges that employees brought to the EEOC. What the EEOC did with them after that does not show up in these statistics. So, could the EEOC itself be a factor?

There are likely many ways that the EEOC could affect charge filings. The agency can alter the level of outreach it performs. Potentially, its case handling practices could deter employees from bothering to bring a case forward. It is plausible that both of these occurred during the Trump Administration. However, there could be other causes.

More State Filings?

Another arguably related rationale may be that some employees chose to file their employment discrimination claims with state agencies rather than the EEOC. The EEOC does not fully report state filing data, some of which it likely doesn’t have. However, it does report sexual harassment cases filed in each state, including with state agencies. In total, those cases rose measurably in 2018 and 2019 before dropping back to nearly the 2017 level in 2020. Such cases also dropped gradually over Obama’s eight years as President. This data doesn’t clarify whether employees have shifted their filing preferences from the EEOC to state agencies. But they do suggest that such a shift, if it exists, doesn’t fully explain a reduction in EEOC charges. Nationwide, employees are likely filing fewer discrimination claims overall.

Improved Workplace Culture?

Perhaps incidents of employment discrimination are declining? Maybe. Hopefully. A better way of putting this would probably be that fewer employees feel it is worth it to file discrimination claims. Not every employment discrimination claim has merit, of course. And many employees who suffer discrimination never report it, much less file a formal complaint with a government agency.

Political or Economic Influence?

One way to analyze the difference between the Obama and Trump administrations is to look back at previous presidencies. Maybe the party in control is a variable in EEOC filing statistics.

Bush

Between fiscal years 2001 and 2017, under President George W. Bush (R), the EEOC received an average of 80,000 charges each year. The numbers nearly reached as low as 75,000 in 2005 and 2006, before increasing to 82,792 charges in FY 2007. Then, in 2008, employees filed 95,402 EEOC charges. That comparatively high number was likely related to extreme financial distress as a result of the Great Recession. When more employees lose their jobs and have no alternative source of income, discrimination claims are apt to rise. Those same factors may have contributed to higher numbers of charges during Obama’s first term.

Clinton

Democrat Bill Clinton became President in January 1993. Total EEOC charges increased from 72,302 to 87,942 between FY 1992 and FY 1993. That’s a 21.6% uptick, the largest one-year increase in at least the past 30 years. However, it’s almost entirely accounted for by the implementation of the ADA, which the EEOC began enforcing on July 26, 1992. Disability discrimination claims accounted for 15,274 charges in FY 1993, compared to only 1,048 the previous year. After peaking at 91,189 charges in 1994, there were less than 80,000 charges filed per year over the last five years of the Clinton Administration–slightly below Bush-era levels.

Digging Into the 2020 EEOC Charge Statistics

That history doesn’t seem to explain fully why EEOC charges dropped throughout the Trump presidency. But what else can we find out from the data on 2020 EEOC charges?

All statistics used for this article are available here.

Race/Color Discrimination

The EEOC reports 22,064 charges alleging race discrimination in FY 2020. That’s easily the fewest such claims in the history of the EEOC dataset going back to 1992, representing a 38.5% drop since the peak a decade earlier in FY 2010. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of total EEOC charges, race discrimination claims were lower in each of the past three years than at any point over the past three decades.

However, charges based on color discrimination have increased. In FY 2020, 5.3% of charges (3,562) included a claim of color discrimination–the highest level ever for such claims on both a percentage and absolute basis. The reasonable assumption is that more employees are raising color discrimination claims instead of race discrimination. Yet, employees can claim discrimination based on both race and color. So, the increase in color discrimination claims doesn’t necessarily explain the reduction in race discrimination claims.

National Origin Discrimination

Charges alleging national origin discrimination also dropped precipitously under the Trump Administration, from 9,840 in FY 2016 to 6,377 in FY 2020–a 35.2% decline. However, this trend began earlier. National original discrimination charges also dropped 7.5% during Obama’s second term after reaching their historical high-water mark during his first four years.

Other Categories

Charges alleging discrimination based on sex, religion, age, and disability all declined in FY 2020 (as in 2017-2019). But the declines were roughly proportionate to the overall case volume.

It may be of some note that charges alleging GINA violations (genetic information discrimination) more than doubled in 2020 to an all-time high. Yet, they still only accounted for less than 1% of all cases.

Looking Ahead

There are several reasons to believe that employment discrimination charges will go up as soon as 2021.

First, people who lost their jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic still have time to file. In many states, employees have up to 300 days to file an EEOC charge, or maybe longer to file with a similar state agency. The longer people remain out of work, the more incentive they have to assert a claim against a former employer. Plus, COVID-19 probably created logistical issues delaying some filings, which will now appear in the 2021 statistics.

Second, the Biden Administration likely will focus more on protecting employees than its predecessors. Efforts will probably include both extended outreach and more aggressive prosecution of employers. If employees feel like they will have a receptive agency, they should be more prone to file charges.

Third, COVID-19 has changed the workplace in ways that ultimately won’t solve employment discrimination. Harassment and other forms of discrimination could have occurred less often over the past year because people were not physically in workplaces. But discrimination can also occur by remote means, and employees may gradually become more aware of their rights relative to the new work environment. Plus, many people will return to work on-site, where traditional acts of harassment will probably, unfortunately, still be perpetrated.

As ever, employers should be proactive in preventing employment discrimination. Anti-harassment training is one viable approach. Effective hiring practices, training, and supervision are also critical.

Cooperative Dialogue

Cooperative Dialogue for New York City Employee Accommodations

The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) now imposes a higher burden on employers regarding workplace accommodations. Whereas most discrimination/accommodation laws rely on an “interactive process,” the NYCHRL requires employers to engage in a “cooperative dialogue” and issue a written determination. Learn more about this increased burden on New York City employers.

Reasonable Accommodations Under the New York City Human Rights Law

The New York City Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and places of public accommodations based on numerous protected characteristics. A few of the legally protected categories also afford employees rights to reasonable accommodations:

  1. Disability
  2. Religious beliefs
  3. Pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition
  4. Victims of domestic violence, sex offenses, or stalking

Disability Accommodations

The NYCHRL defines disability as “any physical, medical, mental, or psychological impairment, or a history or record of such impairment, and includes a full range of sensory, mental, physical, mobility, developmental, learning, and psychological disabilities whether they are visible and apparent or not.” Employers in New York City must make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities if they know of or should have known of the disability. However, employers do not have to make an accommodation that would pose an “undue hardship”.

Similar standards apply to accommodations based on the other protected characteristics above.

Cooperative Dialogue

Most other laws requiring employees to make reasonable accommodations, such as the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, envision an “interactive process” between the employer and employee.

Since 2018, the NYCHRL has imposed a higher burden on employees, requiring them to engage in a “cooperative dialogue” with an employee requesting accommodations.

The requirements of cooperative dialogue for employers include:
1. Learning of the employee’s need for accommodation;
2. Initiating a cooperative dialogue;
3. Communicating in good faith with the employee; and
4. Notifying the employee, in writing, of the employer’s determination regarding the accommodation.

The exchange between the employer and employee should adress

  • the individual’s needs and considerations of potential accommodations,
  • alternatives to a requested accommodation, and
  • difficulties that the accommodation may pose to the employer.

Cooperative Dialogue Process

Under the NYCHRL, employers have an affirmative duty to engage in a cooperative dialogue even in some situations when the employee has not requested accommodation. For example, employers may have the responsibility to observe whether an employee’s performance at work has diminished because of a disability. If the employer reaches this belief, then management must initiate a cooperative dialogue with the employee.

The employer should not ask the employee whether they have a disability. Instead, management should ask whether anything is going on that the employer can help with and inform the employee of any available support, including reasonable accommodations. Once the employer engages in the dialogue process, the employee does not waive the opportunity to seek accommodation in the future if they choose not to reveal that they have a disability.

After the parties have engaged in the cooperative dialogue process, the employer must give the employee a final determination identifying any accommodation that was granted or denied.

Duration of Cooperative Dialogue

A cooperative dialogue is ongoing until one of the following occurs:

1. The employer grants a reasonable accommodation; or

2. The employer reasonably concludes that:

  • No accommodation exists that will allow the employee to perform the essential requisites of the job;
  • There is no accommodation available that will not cause it undue hardship; or
  • A reasonable accommodation was identified that meets the individual’s needs, but the individual did not accept it, and no reasonable alternative was identified during the cooperative dialogue.

Good Faith Cooperative Dialogue

When evaluating whether the employer engaged in the accommodation process in good faith, the New York City Commission on Human Rights will consider various factors, including whether the employer:

  • Has a policy informing employees how to request accommodations.
  • Responded to the request promptly in light of the urgency and reasonableness of the request.
  • Sought to obstruct or delay the cooperative dialogue or to intimidate or deter the employee from requesting the accommodation.

Employers violate the NYCHRL if they “refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation or who the covered entity has notice may require such an accommodation.”

Written Determination

After engaging fully in a cooperative dialogue, the employer will decide whether to provide an accommodation. Management must then notify the employee in writing of the determination. After receiving the determination, the employee can continue to make new accommodation requests. In that case, the employer must re-engage in a cooperative dialogue.

What Should Employers Do?

Employers in New York City must comply with these cooperative dialogue requirements in any case where an employee may have a right to a workplace accommodation. Failure to do so is a standalone violation of the NYCHRL.

New York businesses should review the employee policies and procedures to ensure compliance with this relatively new and unusual obligation. Supervisors must understand these requirements and the appropriate way to engage in a cooperative dialogue. Or at least when to make a referral to someone who will handle this process (e.g., human resources).

For more articles and updates of interest to New York employers, subscribe to our newsletter and follow Horton Law on LinkedIn.