Offering a reassignment process may not satisfy religious accommodation duty

The district court sided with the employer, holding that offering the process met its duty under Title VII. The appeals court disagreed. 

Under Title VII, once an employee shows a religious conflict, the employer must take the first step and propose an accommodation that removes it – an alternate job or a changed arrangement – while preserving pay and conditions. Only then does the employee have to cooperate. A process, the panel said, is not a proposal. 

The numbers did not help the department. Its own data showed that of 122 religious accommodation requests, only 17 were granted – a 14 percent rate. The record said nothing about what those jobs paid or whether they resolved any religious conflict. The one detailed example cut against the employer: a worker, who was not part of the appeal, was offered a job at half his salary and left because “the pay cut was not feasible.” 

The panel said the process offered “little more than a fig leaf.” 

The court revived Title VII claims for three of the employees and state discrimination claims for all five, sending the case back for further proceedings. It affirmed summary judgment against two other employees’ Title VII claims on procedural grounds – one for failing to exhaust remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the other for filing suit too late.