Religious Discrimination Category Archives — New York Employment Attorney Blog Published by New York Employment Lawyers

December 30, 2021

Happy Holidays and Season’s Greetings! Here’s Some Reminders About Workplace Religious Discrimination that the Holiday Season Can Provide

December represents a time of great celebration for adherents of a wide variety of religions. Most people are keenly familiar with some celebrations (like Christmas and Hanukkah) and probably less so others (like Bodhi Day and Yule). What all of these have in common is that they occur in conjunction with various religions — religions whose adherents, regardless of their numbers, are entitled to protection from workplace religious discrimination. Whether you’re Christian, Jewish, Muslim, a member of a smaller religion, or an atheist, you shouldn’t be judged at work by your beliefs and, if you have been so harmed, you should get in touch with a knowledgeable New York religious discrimination lawyer.

As religious adherents enter into seasonal celebrations, some may need workplace accommodations to allow them to meet their religious obligations. Some issues of religious discrimination and workplace accommodations are clear.

For example, if you’re an Orthodox Jew or a Christian in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, you have special Sabbath-related requirements that restrict the hours you are available for work on Saturdays and some Friday evenings in the winter. Unless the employer has a reasonable basis for believing your religious practice is “insincere,” then the employer must make reasonable accommodations as long as those accommodations don’t create an unfair burden on the employer’s business.

June 18, 2021

Taking Another Look at New York’s New Rules About Hair Discrimination… and How to Overcome Your Employer’s Defenses

by Phillips & Associates

Back in March, this blog covered a new regulation from the New York City Commission on Human Rights. That final rule, which became effective at the end of January, regarded religious or race discrimination and an employee’s hair. Our blog post from March offered details about what kind of employer conduct is now prohibited under the new rule but, as any experienced New York discrimination lawyer can tell you, it’s not just about having a protective law or regulation on the books and proving that your employer took a negative action against you, it is also about being able to overcome the defenses that you reasonably can expect that your employer will throw at you. With that in mind, this post shall explore the nature of employer defenses against hair discrimination and how you can confront them.

One affirmative defense that the law makes available to employers is that the employer’s hair or head-covering rules were needed to address a “legitimate health or safety concern.” What’s worth knowing is that it’s not enough for your employer simply to raise the issue of health and/or safety. Instead, the employer must have a specific basis(es) for its purported health and/or safety concern, and that basis must be a legitimate one.

For example, a pharmaceutical manufacturing employer conceivably could enact certain head covering and/or hair-related restrictions for all employees working in “cleanroom” facilities where regulations demand a space that is free or nearly free from particulates.

March 16, 2021

New York City Adopts Final Rule on Hairstyle Discrimination in Employment

by Phillips & Associates

Discrimination in employment on the basis of race or religion violates every antidiscrimination statute in the country. These are among the practices that brought on the passage of the first such laws decades ago. Despite a great deal of progress, much work remains to be done. As New York City employment discrimination attorneys, we have seen many ways that employers have subjected workers to adverse treatment because of race or religion, while making it seem like it has nothing to do with either. Whether this is intentional on employers’ part is not nearly as important as the impact it has on workers throughout the city and country. Hairstyle discrimination is a major area of ongoing race or religious discrimination that might not look like race or religious discrimination to many people. New York City issued guidance on this issue in 2019. The New York State Legislature included it in the state’s antidiscrimination law the same year. In early 2021, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued a final rule formalizing a ban on hairstyle discrimination.

The CHR issued guidance on hairstyle discrimination in February 2019. It interpreted the prohibitions on race and religious discrimination in the New York City Human Rights Law to protect workers’ right to “hairstyles that are closely associated with their racial, ethnic, or cultural identities.” It noted that, for Black workers, employers’ policies on grooming and appearance can exclude their natural hair. Many Black workers have had to obtain expensive and damaging hair treatments simply to comply with their employers’ policies. It further noted that some communities “have a religious or cultural connection with uncut hair.”

While the CHR’s guidance document only expressed the agency’s interpretation of city law, state lawmakers made some of these protections explicit in the New York State Human Rights Law later in 2019. A bill signed by the governor that July added two new definitions to the statute. The term “race” now includes “traits historically associated with race,” with specific reference to “hair texture and protective hairstyles.” N.Y. Exec. L. § 292(37). “Protective hairstyles” includes “braids, locks, and twists.” Id. at § 292(38). The CHR’s guidance included additional examples, such as “cornrows, Afros, Bantu knots, [and] fades.”

September 11, 2019

“Administrative Exhaustion” Claim Waived by Employer in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit, According to Supreme Court

by Phillips & Associates

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employees and job applicants to follow a rather lengthy administrative process before filing a lawsuit. New York City employment discrimination attorneys have multiple options when deciding how to approach claims like sexual harassment. Each statute defines procedures that lawyers and their clients must follow. A decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2019, Fort Bend County v. Davis, addresses a defense known as “administrative exhaustion.” Employers can raise this defense when a plaintiff did not follow the administrative process required by federal law. It can result in dismissal of a case. The Davis decision, however, holds that an employer waives the defense if they do not raise it soon enough.

Before an employee or former employee may file a lawsuit under Title VII in federal court, they must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The deadline to file a charge is 180 days after the alleged unlawful act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). The EEOC investigates the claim, and may attempt to reach a “conciliation agreement” with the employer. Id. at § 2000e-5(f)(1). It can decide to file suit against the employer on behalf of the complainant and others with similar claims.

A complainant only gains the right to file a lawsuit if, after 180 days, the EEOC has not initiated a lawsuit. The complainant can request a notice, known as a “right to sue” letter, that gives them ninety days to file suit. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28. If an individual files a Title VII lawsuit before they have received a right-to-sue letter, the defendant can move to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff did not exhaust all of their administrative remedies. Hence, it is known as the administrative exhaustion defense.
Continue reading

December 3, 2018

It’s Not Just About Sex: Other Types of Harassment at New York City Office Holiday Parties Are Also Unlawful

by Phillips & Associates

The holiday season means many different things to people: family, friends, food, a general sense of merriment, and so on. It also means that many employers will host holiday parties for their employees, managers, executives, and perhaps clients and customers. The “office holiday party” has a reputation, largely thanks to movies and television, as an unabashedly wild event free from customary rules and restrictions. It is our duty as New York City employment attorneys to remind everyone that the rules still apply, however wild the party might be. Harassment on the basis of any protected category is unlawful. We believe that holiday parties should be fun for everybody, meaning that the fun should never come at anyone’s expense.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. Other federal statutes prohibit age and disability discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that this includes harassment of any employee based on these factors, whether it comes from someone in a supervisory position or not. An employer may be liable in either situation if they are aware of the harassment and fail to make reasonable efforts to address it. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) protects a much broader range of categories than Title VII, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

The EEOC has stated that isolated incidents, unless they are particularly severe, do not constitute violations of Title VII or other statutes. This generally applies to violations of the NYCHRL as well. Multiple acts of harassment become a violation of antidiscrimination law when they create a hostile work environment, or otherwise interfere with an employee’s ability to do their jobs.
Continue reading

January 4, 2018

Recently Filed New York Discrimination Case Highlights Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

by Phillips & Associates

In a recently filed New York religious discrimination case, a New York woman claims that she was subjected to discrimination and not provided with a fair chance of employment due to her religious beliefs and the fact that she wore a scarf that covered her head to a job interview.According to a news report covering the recently filed case, the woman applied for a job as a customer service representative at a check-cashing business. Later, the woman received a call from the manager, inviting her to come in for an interview. When the woman arrived, she was wearing a head scarf.

In the lawsuit, the woman claims that the manager immediately turned hostile when he saw that she arrived wearing the scarf. The manager reportedly asked the woman, “Are you going to be wearing that thing? … Because you will not be able to work with that on. Or will that be a problem for you?”