MENU

Tag: supervisor

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.

Encounters of the Hostile Kind: What Do You Need to Prove a Racially Based Hostile Work Environment?  

March 20, 2019

Meet Brenda Smelter. She is a black woman that was hired by Southern Home Care Services, Inc. d/b/a/ ResCare Homecare in July 2013 as a Customer Service Supervisor. She was the only black person who worked in her office, she replaced a white employee who was away from the office on maternity leave. Brenda struggled with performing her job but most distressing at work was that she often overheard co-workers making racist comments about black people; sometimes these comments were made directly to her face and in the presence of others, including members of management.

The severity of these racist comments peaked on the last day of her employment when a co-worker called her a “dumb black nigger” during an argument. According to Smelter, she was fired for reporting this epithet, along with her co-workers’ other racist comments, to her direct supervisor. The reason Southern Care provided for the termination was “poor fit” citing performance concerns and chaos. After her termination, she was replaced by a white employee, in addition to the return of her predecessor, also white, from maternity leave.

Brenda sued Southern Home under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, asserting claims for discriminatory termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Smelter contends that Southern Home (1) discriminated against her by permitting a hostile work environment to exist at the office, (2) discriminated against her by terminating her because of her race, and (3) retaliated against her for reporting her co-workers’ racist comments.

After the case was dismissed by the District Court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Smelter’s discriminatory termination and retaliation claims fail because she provided insufficient evidence of pretext in response to Southern Home’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her. But the 11th Circuit Court disagreed that, as a matter of law, the harassment Smelter suffered was not severe or pervasive and Southern Home lacked notice of that harassment.

Thus, in October 2018, the 11th Circuit Court gave us a recent window into the elements required to establish a racially based hostile work environment claim.

To prove a hostile work environment claim, an employee must show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” When the employee’s harassment claim is based on her race, she must prove five elements: (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on her race, (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of her employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment, and (5) the employer is responsible for the environment.

Typically at issue, as was the case here, is the “severe and pervasive” threshold. To establish that harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of her employment, an employee must prove that her work environment was both subjectively and objectively hostile. In other words, the employee must first establish that she “subjectively perceive[d] the environment to be abusive.” Then she also must satisfy the objective component by showing that her work environment was one “that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.”

Beginning with Smelter’s subjective perception of her work environment. Smelter repeatedly testified that enduring her co-workers’ racist comments was stressful and hurtful. She also explained that it felt like the harassment “never stopp[ed],” as though her co-workers were pushing her to “see how much she [could] take” in the hopes that she would “just quit and leave.” The Court found this testimony sufficient to demonstrate subjective belief in the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct.

The employer objected that Smelter’s failure to report the incidents indicate a lack of subjective believe in the harassment. Precedent recognizes, however, that an employee’s failure to report harassment is not dispositive of whether the employee perceived the environment created by the harassment as hostile or abusive. 

Regarding objectivity, the facts sufficient to meet this threshold were: 

1.    Pervasiveness, also known as Frequency

Smelter endured racist remarks by her co-workers nearly every day that she worked in that office. There were at least 8 racist comments in 2 months that Smelter could recall with specificity.

2.    Severity

Brenda endured the following comments: black men were “lazy” and “the scum of the earth; “black women[] ha[d] babies on welfare,” President Barack Obama’s “big ears” made him “look[] like a monkey,” and she did not know that black people could be buried on Sundays; Smelter’s hair made her look like a “mixed monkey” from the movie Planet of the Apes; an occasion when black people were exiting a bus at a Wal-Mart store was described as looking like they were “chained together.”; and a desire expressed to “send them all back . . . to Africa.”. A co-worker “jumped up . . in a rage” and said “get out of my office . . . you dumb black nigger.” in doing so she “hit the desk” like she was about “to charge at” Smelter. 

 The Court held that these comments were directed at Brenda to humiliate her and were egregious even just once because it was preceded by two months of related abuse, thus, they were severe.

3.    “Physically threatening or humiliating”

See point number 2; the comments were severely humiliating. The Court stated that “physical threat” is not always a dispositive requirement.

4.    Altered job performance is optional in light of totality of other circumstances 

Indeed, “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned that harassment need not be . . . so extreme that it produces tangible effects on job performance in order to be actionable.”

5.    Because the comments were made by co-workers, management needed to be aware or made aware of the harassing conduct and must also have failed to take prompt remedial action

Here, there was a concession that no report was made until the day of termination but there might have been actual notice because Smelter testified that everyone thought the slurs were funny and that others, including management, overheard the slurs. Smelter also testified that members of management overheard these comments and were amused by them, but she never made a formal report until the day of her termination. 

Take away for employees making this claim: this case demonstrates the type of hostility that makes the threshold for a hostile work environment claim.

Take away for employers defending such a claim: the company must take prompt remedial action if any members of management have actual or constructive notice of this type of hostility.

Perilous Pitfalls of Performance Appraisals

December 31, 2018

John Doe is a manager who attempts to be efficient at his job. He understands that personnel management requires a certain diplomacy and finesse. But when he speaks to in-house counsel Jane Smith about a recent EEOC charge filed against their company she is quick to give him several rigid rules to avoid the perilous pitfalls of performance appraisals:

  1. If it’s bad, say so

A performance appraisal is immediately evidence in an employment law case. Thus, whenever, and I mean each and every time that a performance appraisal is being conducted, managers must give their honest assessment. If performance is bad, then managers must make that clear in writing during the appraisal. This writing should state the standard to be attained, should delineate how the employee has failed to meet the requisite standard and lastly, what the employee must do to cure the error.

For instance, during unemployment insurance benefit appeals before the Georgia Department of Labor, where misconduct is alleged, the evaluations if done properly could demonstrate that the employee was aware of the standard to be met, did not meet the standard, was given an opportunity to cure the deficiency and did not do so. 

2. Don’t ignore a litigation hold notice 

A litigation hold is a written directive advising custodians of certain documents and electronically-stored information (“ESI”) to preserve potentially relevant evidence in anticipation of future litigation. Performance appraisals are frequently relevant in wrongful termination cases, especially those cases in which the employer alleges poor performance as the non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason for termination of employment. These evaluations are thus frequently the subject of discovery requests. Medical records are another class of usually relevant documents especially in a disability discrimination case. Several types of documents fit the bill depending on the issues raised in the suit.

Once an employer receives notice of a potential legal claim, it does have a duty to preserve the relevant documents, failing to do so could trigger an adverse inference that the documents would have favored the employee. Also, sanctions could be levied against the employer and its legal counsel. 

3. Educate managers to apply objective standards uniformly

Performance appraisals are generally governed by employer policies; there are no federal or state laws determining how or when a performance appraisal must be conducted. However, there are laws implicated by the manner in which employers carry out performance appraisals. For instance, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, etc., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of a real or perceived disability. Each of these laws could be violated if the employer scores the employee negatively because of one or more of these protected categories.

All told, employers need good counsel to create performance appraisal templates, to educate supervisors and managers on its use and to maintain compliance in the event of a dispute.