Discrimination lawyer in chicago illinois. Free email or phone consultation about your employment matter.

A variety of laws - local, state and federal - protect a person from religious discrimination in the workplace.

At the federal level Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is intented to prevent or at least remedy national origin discrimination. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments.

As summarized by the EEOC, Title VII is inteded to protect workers in the following manner:

Title VII's pregnancy-related protections include:

• Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.
• Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
• Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.
• An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
• Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
• Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

Our office offers free email or phone consultations and will be happy to discuss your matter with you.

*not responsible for accuracy of linked content


Religious Discrimination News
Pipes Output

Today’s orders and opinions by Erin Miller
Posted on 8 Mar 2010 at 8:07am

UPDATE, 10:20 a.m.: Both briefs in the cases acted on and full texts of the opinions now follow the jump.

The Court has granted cert. in three cases, NASA v. Nelson (09-320), Snyder v. Phelps (09-751), and Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (09-152). The Chief Justice took no part in consideration of the last petition.

The Court has requested the views of the Solicitor General in the following cases: Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc. (09-683) and Amara v. CIGNA/CIGNA v. Amara (09-784/09-804). Justice Sotomayor took no part in considering the last two petitions.

We have just two opinions today:

The first opinion is Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (08-1119). Justice Sotomayor writes for the Court, joined in full by six Justices and in part by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justice Scalia concurs in part and concurs in the judgment, joined by Thomas. The Court holds that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance are debt-relief agencies under the bankruptcy abuse law. The opinion is here.

The second opinion is in Bloate v. United States (08-728), reversing and remanding the lower court decision on a 7-2 vote. Justice Thomas writes for the Court. Justice Ginsburg joins the opinion but files a separate concurrence. Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justice Breyer. The time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excluded from the 70-day limit under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. The opinion is here.

The full order list is here.

Title: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth
Docket: 09-152
Issue: Whether Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 ? which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers ?if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warning? ? preempts all vaccine design defect claims, regardless whether the vaccine?s side effects were unavoidable.

Opinion below (3d Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Supplemental brief addressed to the amicus brief of the United States in American Home Products Corp. v. Ferrari Amicus brief of the National Vaccine Information Center

Title: Snyder v. Phelps
Docket: 09-751
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court?s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter; (2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and (3) whether an individual attending a family member?s funeral constitutes a ?captive audience? who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

Opinion below (4th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition

Title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson
Docket: 09-530
Issues: Whether the government violates a federal contract employee?s constitutional right to informational privacy by (1) asking in the course of a background investigation whether the employee has received counseling or treatment for illegal drug use that has occurred within the past year and/or (2) asking the employee?s designated references for any adverse information that may have a bearing on the employee?s suitability for employment at a federal facility ? when the employee?s and reference?s responses are used only for employment purposes, and the information obtained is protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

Opinion below (9th Circuit, denial of rehearing en banc) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner?s reply

Title: Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc.
Docket: 09-683
Issue: Whether a private military contractor in Iraq should be afforded de facto immunity under the political question doctrine for severely injuring
a United States soldier in an automobile wreck during a routine convoy.

Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition

Title: Amara v. CIGNA; CIGNA v. Amara
Docket: 09-784; 09-804
Issue: (1) Whether a district court, after finding violations of the advance notice of reduction requirement in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act §204(h), lacks the authority to require the prior benefit provisions to be reinstated; and (2) whether a district court, after finding that participants were promised “comparable” or “larger” future retirement benefits in a summary of material modification errs in concluding that it lacks the authority to require at least “comparable” future benefits to be provided.

Petition for certiorari (09-784) Petition for certiorari (09-804) Brief in opposition (09-784) Brief in opposition (09-804) Petitioner’s reply (09-784) Petitioner’s reply (09-804)

No. 08-1119, Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz

No. 08-728, Bloate v. United States

Justin Randolph - Employment discrimination assistance