Tag: smyrna small business and employment lawyer

How to Reduce Risk of Litigation: Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccine Religious Exemption

September 9, 2021

As we attempt to escape the dark days of the COVID-19 pandemic, thanks in no small part to the availability of a vaccine, new changes are still being made in offices across the United States and the world to make that exit a reality. In the US, several  employers require staff members to take vaccinations to keep the office safe and free from health scares.

But one size does not fit all — several employees are requesting an exemption from compulsory vaccinations on various grounds, including religious reasons. But is this a conversation worth having? And what does US federal law say about the rights of individuals to exempt themselves from compulsory vaccinations on religious grounds? Let’s find out.

Understanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on religious beliefs or practices. In the case of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations, this law requires small business owners to accommodate a staff member’s request to be exempted from compulsory vaccinations because of sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Of course, this does not mean employers must accept an employee’s plea not to take the vaccine without question. Based on specific clauses in Title VII, company executives can look into religious objections made by employees to determine whether their requests are legitimate and fall in line with the requirements of the law.

Quickly, let’s look at some clauses in Title VII that may help small business owners handle issues surrounding religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccinations.

Determining Whether the Employee’s Request is Based on Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs

While US laws require company executives to accommodate a staff member’s sincerely held religious beliefs, it can be tricky to recognize this belief, faith, or practice.

For clarity, Title VII does not recognize philosophical, political, and social ideologies under religious beliefs. As such, employees cannot use those factors as a basis to exempt themselves from vaccinations. Title VII also does not cover personal preferences.

That said, when an employer is not clear on the religious beliefs of a staff member, the employer can request additional information – either through documentary evidence of the tenants and dogma of the faith or one-on-one explanations – to clarify the situation. However, before casting doubt on an employee’s beliefs, the employer must ensure her reservations are objective and not coming from a place of discrimination. To be on the safe side, though, we would recommend companies consult legal help for complete clarity and guidance before making any move to question a team member’s religious objections.

Refusing Appeals for Religious Vaccination Exemptions Because of Undue Hardship

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers may deny a staff member’s plea for exemption if granting the request would cause undue business hardship. For better understanding, approving a request for religious accommodation may cause undue hardship if:

●      It will significantly decrease business efficiency and productivity

●      It will infringe the rights and privileges of other members of the workforce

●      It puts staff and  customers at risk of workplace hazards

●      It may require other members of the team to execute more than their quota of hazardous tasks

●      The accommodation is too costly

Accommodations to Consider in the Event of Religious Exemptions from Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations

If an employer decides to grant an employees’ requests to be exempted from COVID-19 vaccinations, the employer may need to make some changes around the office to accommodate these individuals. Some of the steps an employer can take for exempted employees may include:

●      Mandatory wearing of face masks

●      Social distancing within office premises

●      Remote working

●      Isolation to a specific workplace

●      Alterations to employee’s work schedule to limit interactions with clients and other members of the workforce

Before putting these measures in place, the employer will need to review company policies on religious accommodation with company executives and managers; discuss with employees the proposed accommodations to be put in place around the office; and, appoint a supervisor to process and respond to all requests for religious accommodations.

Get Legal Help 

Employment laws in the US can be tricky, and when it comes to religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccinations, small business owners may require the aid of a legal professional to navigate the muddy waters and avoid any potential litigation.

Therefore, if you are in need of an attorney to help you with issues relating to religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccinations, consider contacting The Law Office of Sheri Oluyemi, LLC. We have an experienced team of professionals who specialize in employment law cases for small businesses, and we can provide your company with the legal counsel to respond to religious accommodations for COVID-19 vaccinations.

It’s Not What It Looks Like: Retaliation 101

July 31, 2019

With the inclusion of anti-retaliation provisions, Congress protected the rights granted in several employment related statues. An anti-retaliation provision prohibits any adverse employment action taken against an employee because that employee either opposed a practice prohibited by law or participated in the enforcement of a right provided by law. Some statutes provide both “opposition” and “participation” protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a), 42 U.S.C § 1981, USERRA 38 USC § 4311(b), American Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some statutes include only a “participation” protection such as the Family Medical Leave Act 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2).

To prove retaliation, an employee can either present overt (also known as direct) evidence of the employer’s intent to retaliate. Or, the employee can provide circumstantial (also known as indirect) evidence, which can then be rebutted by the employer. In order to establish the basis or “prima facie” circumstances, an employee must prove the following: (1) that she engaged in statutorily protected conduct, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that a causal connection exists between the two.

The ADEA, ADA, FMLA and Title VII require a “but for” causal connection not just the lesser “motivating factor”. For FMLA claims, the employee must first prove that he was eligible and entitled to FMLA leave before proving the remaining parts of the prima facie case.

Once the employee has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. If the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the employee to demonstrate that the employer’s proffered reason was pretextual by presenting evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the reasons given by the employer were not the real reasons for the adverse employment decision.

An “adverse employment action” is any type of action that would have made a reasonable employee reluctant oppose the practice or participate in the enforcement of the law. Adverse actions take many forms. These include, but are not limited to, termination of employment, demotion, failure to hire or rehire, failure to promote, reduction or denial of benefits, etc. While valid business decisions will necessarily require some of these adverse actions, the employer must demonstrate that its reasons are indeed valid and not pretext for retaliation.

The devil is really in the details when it comes to pretext. Some of the most common tell-tale signs are: suspicious timing, inconsistent reasons, comments that call stated reason into question, conflicting evidence such as citing poor performance but having no record of discipline, among others.

Remedies available to an employee who is successful on a claim of retaliation would be entitled to extensive damages.