Are Christian Religious Beliefs and Practices Dead At Employment?
So I have a heavy topic for you today: Do employers have to accommodate employees who object to serving gay customers based on religious beliefs?
Pretend that you own a bakery. You have an employee who sincerely objects against gay marriage for religious reasons. Your employee refuses to bake a cake for a wedding that will be for a gay couple. Can you fire that employee for refusing to bake the cake? Or must you force the employee to bake the cake? Or must you allow the employee to abstain from baking the cake?
As a practical matter, I think the answer to this question depends in no small part on where you live. A jury in California may think about this in a remarkably different way than a jury in Kentucky.
What is a “reasonable accommodation” for a religious belief is context (and probably culturally) dependent. The recent Abercrombie & Fitch and Hobby Lobby decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court underscore how politically driven religious discrimination decisions can be.
Here’s the law. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer’s business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.”
Protected religious beliefs are not just for people who are part of a recognized, organized religion. Discrimination protection and accommodations also apply to anyone who has “sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.”
The anti-discrimination laws are meant to broadly protect people who have sincere religious beliefs and practices without requiring them to prove that they belong to a mainstream church.
Religious discrimination claims typically focus on an employer’s requirement to accommodate days or times for worship and modes of dress. For example, employers are more or less required to allow time off for religious holidays, barring extraordinary hardship.
Employees also cannot be forced to participate in employer-sanctioned religious ceremonies. So you can have a Christmas party, but you cannot force employees to celebrate Christmas at the party, for one common example.
Dress codes must accommodate religious dress, prohibitions and hairstyles. For example, Rastafarians must be permitted to keep their dreadlocks. And you cannot prohibit a Jew from wearing a yarmulke.
This is where Abercrombie & Fitch got into trouble recently. They were sued for not allowing female employees to wear head scarfs as that violated their dress policy. In its defense, Abercrombie & Fitch claimed that the head scarf was not stylish and did not compliment their wares, which they had their employees dress in to display. But this is not a good enough reason to prevent an employee from observing a sincere religious belief.
Title VII (and state laws that follow suit) also prevent employers from forcing employees to act in ways that are against their sincere religious, ethical or moral beliefs. So, for example, if it is against a restaurant server’s religion to dance, an employer cannot make her dance as part of her serving duties — even if it is just for a quick Happy Birthday song.
Employers do not have to accommodate religious practices when it causes “undue hardship,” however. The EEOC explains, “An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”
So this is where context, culture and a jury would come in. Most accommodations decrease workplace efficiency, so what is reasonable and what is undue hardship?
Let’s returning to our reluctant cake baker. Would it be a hardship for the employer to have a different, non-objecting employee bake the cake? Perhaps it depends on staffing and who is available. Perhaps this employee is the only employee capable of making fondant. Or perhaps there are ten other bakers who could easily do it.
If it is possible for the employer to not require the employee to do something against their sincerely held moral beliefs, it may be better to put a different worker on the task.
If the employer cannot, he may be justified in forcing the employee to comply, on pain of termination.
I am certain that a typical California jury would be unsympathetic to the employee in this situation — although I can conceive of a jury make up in some places in California where this would not be certain. I would also be less certain in Missouri, where feelings about gay marriage are more varied. So this is why I would say that the answer of what is reasonable and required, versus what is “undue hardship” somewhat depends on where you are at in the country.
An even trickier question is whether accommodating the employee’s beliefs results in an actionable discrimination against the customer, creating liability for the employer. If the employee forces the business to get sued for discrimination by a customer, that is surely an undue hardship.
For example, what happens if the objecting baker tells the customer that they refuse to bake the cake? Or worse, what if the employee begins proselytizing to the customer in a way that becomes offensive (or even considered “hate speech”)? Will the customer sue the bakery for the employee’s behavior?
In most situations where an employee creates a liability for the employer, you can expect the employee to get fired legally. For instance, here’s a true story: a big retailer was told by a customer that she did not want a black delivery driver to deliver her purchase. The manager acquiesced and went to send a white delivery driver. But unfortunately, he told both the white and black drivers why he made the change. Both employees refused to go along and complained to HR about the manager’s decision. The manager was fired and the customer’s order cancelled. Because that manager’s decision put the company at risk for a lawsuit by two employees, the firing was justified.
When it comes to what is required to accommodate religious employees, there is no concrete answer for employers. And with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, there will be a rise in “conscientious objectors” within the wedding industry.
My advice to employers is to try and accommodate your religious employees as much as possible, without putting your business at risk by inviting suits from customers or making it impossible to operate.
Many employers in California know that certain employees are entitled to meal and rest breaks. But several years ago, there were multiple large class actions on the question of whether employers must “ensure” or merely “provide” breaks.
In practice, what this question means is that sometimes employees choose to not take their breaks, for whatever reason. Sometimes employees prefer to stay at their desks for lunch, for example. Or they find break time boring and would rather keep working.
In those scenarios, the employees are allowed to take breaks but are choosing not to. In other words, the employers provide them but are not ensuring that they occur.
Is this a violation of California law? Are employer required to pay penalties when their employees do not take breaks? Are employers required to discipline or fire employees who fail to take breaks? Would an employee file a claim with the California Division Of Labor Standards Enforcement (DSLE)?
Unfortunately, the answer is not entirely clear. It is certain that employers must provide breaks. They must not prevent employees from taking breaks either expressly or with work policies that discourage breaks in a practical sense. Employers who do not have a compliant break policy in their handbooks may violate this law, simply by failing to have a policy.
The California Supreme Court has stated that employers are not required to “ensure” breaks. Employers are not required to police employees.
But here’s the rub: the argument is going to come in when employees say that work culture or work loads prevent them from taking breaks. So while employers are not required to police employees, they really should to some degree.
The best way to do this is by establishing a timekeeping system that is manageable, easy and efficient, so it becomes a force of habit and not a chore for your managers and employees. You should also train staff on appropriate break policies and encourage them to take breaks, ensuring that policies in your employee handbook, if you have one, are followed. Supervisors should be trained to encourage staff to take breaks.
These habits will keep your company from getting sued and will make lawsuits defensible if they come. Not only that, but breaks are genuinely good for your workforce’s productivity. You may find that encouraging your staff to get up from their desks to walk around, get water, stretch and socialize actually increases their alertness and camaraderie.
If you need guidance about an employment issue, please contact the employment law attorneys of Bellatrix PC at (800) 449-8992 for a consultation.
If you have a morale problem with your workforce, you better do something about it… fast.
When you have a disgruntled worker, it always leads to problems.
As a business owner, here are the problems I see when a person turns bad apple:
- They “poison the well” and create negativity amongst your other staff
- People lose their drive and initiative, so work quality suffers
- People start scrutinizing the employer or developing “grievances”
- The bad person (or several) have to be replaced, costing money
In addition to the practical aspect of having to spend more money replacing employees (not a small consideration in itself), leaving employees always carry risk. People tend to treat a break in an employment relationship with the same emotions as leaving a personal relationship.
In other words, unhappy ex-employees sue. Even when you are squeaky clean, unhappy ex-employees will threaten it.
Sometimes they will sue frivolously, and you end up with a problem, regardless. There will always be a percentage of litigious ex-employees, which means that if more employees are leaving, then there will be a proportionate increase in the number of lawsuits.
Here’s another legal issue: demoralized employees take more stress-related medical leaves. This actually happens a lot and is the leading cause for medical leaves. It’s really easy to violate the leave and disability laws (thus inviting lawsuits). It’s also disruptive to your workforce. And an unhappy, stressed employee doesn’t always recover and return to employment smoothly.
Finally, whenever employees leave, employers must immediately pay all earned compensation (including vacation pay, non-discretionary bonuses and earned commissions). If you do not have a bunch of cash on hand to deal with terminating and replacing employees, you may find yourself in the middle of a wage and labor crisis.
What can an employer do to avoid employee morale problems bankrupting them? Here are four strategies that could save you thousands of dollars.
- Focus on improving employee morale and retaining skilled workers. Take some time to improve relationships with those employees and foster loyalty and contentedness. This is not just a hippie-dippy people idea. Research shows that people work based on “purpose” (which includes a strong sense of community, being valued, loyalty and other social factors), not based on money. Yes, people need money. But an employer who fosters the right social conditions can get away with lower pay or other hardships without loss of morale. And definitely get rid of the bad apples because their drama is unfair to the rest of your team.
- Clean up your HR act by reviewing employees. Employees actually want to be reviewed if they care about their jobs (see point above regarding purpose). You can use reviews to praise (important) and address frustrations and failures that cause low morale. You should also use this as an opportunity to document issues with problem employees so that you can defend yourself later.
- Audit your wage and pay practices with the help of your employment lawyer. Wage and pay class actions are the most common type of class action litigation filed in California, constituting roughly two-thirds of all new class actions being filed and hundreds of new cases each year. You are vulnerable to these types of lawsuits if your pay practices aren’t pretty close to perfect (and there are many laws out there that are traps for the unwary employer, so do not trust an HR service or a do-it-yourself). Not only do audits give you an opportunity to find and fix liabilities before they become lawsuits, but you can use it as an opportunity to show your workforce positive change and encourage their loyalty.
- Encourage — or even require — your employees to take their accumulated vacation during slow times. This is a good way to get vacation time off the books of an employee who has thousands of dollars worth stocked up, which will have to be paid in total at the time of quitting. Plus, employees who take regular vacations are less stressed and happier.
If you have any business or workforce concerns, spend 30 minutes with us on a free Business and Employment Planning Session or schedule a consultation with one of our business law attorneys or our real estate attorneys at (800) 449-8992.
The California Legislature must watch too much of The Walking Dead.
They are really worried about disease.
In the first part of July 2015, they passed two bills aimed at controlling Californians’ health.
There was a bill limiting parents’ ability to decline vaccinations for their school aged children.
And there was a bill requiring employers to give all their employees a minimum amount of sick time every year.
Sadly, due to scarcity, California is unable to mandate that all schoolchildren and employees take the vaccine to prevent Zombism. But if you get bitten, you will definitely have some paid time off to go through the change.
I’m writing to talk about the California sick time law. (It must be about Zombism because it is an answer to a problem that nobody had.)
If you are neither an employer or employee in California, you may still find it interesting. California is trying to lead the country towards more “European” employment policies.
Starting July 1, 2015, all employers were required to meet new sick time accruing laws for all employees.
- It applies even if you have only one employee.
- It applies even if you have only seasonal employees.
- It applies even if you have only salaried exempt employees.
So if you are a small California employer who did not have benefits before because you couldn’t afford them — guess what? California just gave all your employees a raise.
As I’ve said before, I think it is a good business decision to give your employees time at home to be sick. But it should be your decision, not California’s.
(Aside: you should read my blog post on why sick time is a good idea. It is one of my most popular. And it features a picture of my cat.)
California did not just say that you have to provide sick time. They say how much and how you are to accrue it and account for it.
All those forward-thinking “unlimited paid time off” plans that Millennial-type companies have been implementing are now illegal.
Of course, the accrual rules developed by California Legislators were confusing and unworkable. So they passed amendments just a couple weeks later, to try to make the rules clearer.
The rules are not clear at all. I’m an employment lawyer with more than a decade’s experience in California wage law, and I had to read the bills several times.
So what do you need to know? This is my most simplified summary:
- Employers need a written sick time policy.
- Employers need to provide current employees with written notice that sick time benefits have changed (in addition to the policy).
- There’s another mandatory poster to spruce up the break room.
- Employees get at least 8 days of accrual in a year.
- Employees must accrue at the minimum rate of at least one hour sick time per 30 hours worked.
- There are several options for how an employer may do the accrual for their particular workforce’s scheduling.
- Even though they are entitled to 8 days on the books, an employer only has to let the employee take 24 hours of sick time in a year (that’s hours, not 3 days)
- Unlike vacation time, sick time does not have to carry over or be paid out when an employee leaves.
- This applies to virtually all employees with very few exemptions.
- Part time employees do not have to accrue, but seasonal employees do.
- A reinstated employee gets their old accruals back.
- Some payroll companies may not be adequately set up to handle this.
If you need help with this, please click on the button below to set up a consultation.
Bellatrix PC offers the Employer Protection Package, which allows employers to outsource employee compliance functions for less problems and less hassle.