SHARIAsource

A Bangladeshi Muslim worker sued her former employer under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that she was fired and not rehired by the defendant because of her religion and national origin. On appeal, the defendant conceded that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of discrimination, but contended that she did not rebut or rebuff the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason the company had for not rehiring her—which it claimed was due to poor job performance in her previous job assignments. The Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the plaintiff offered no proof that she was not rehired due to religious discrimination.

A Muslim former Naval engineer sued the Secretary of the Navy under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on religion and national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to ethnic slurs and jokes, leading to a hostile work environment. The Court adopted the report by the magistrate judge granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust proper administrative remedies before bringing the case to court. The Court further noted that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the compensatory damage issue.

A Somali Muslim bus driver for American University sued his former employer and supervisor under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on religion and national origin as well as retaliation for asking for reasonable religious accommodation. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was frequently denied the chance to attend Muslim Friday prayer services and that his supervisors made several derogatory comments regarding Muslims. He further argued that he was ultimately terminated because of his religion and in retaliation for filing a complaint regarding a lack of reasonable religious accommodation (in the form of a schedule that accommodated his weekly prayer services). The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that there was enough evidence for a jury to conclude that the University’s reason for firing the plaintiff was a pretext for actual discrimination. However, the Court dismissed the retaliation claim, as the plaintiff did not present any evidence to support it.

The EEOC represented an African-American Muslim suing his former employer under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination and a hostile work environment. The plaintiff claimed he had been the recipient of many offensive comments (such as being called a “towel head” and “Taliban”) and degrading actions (such as his co-workers hiding his time card while he was at prayer services). The Court reversed and remanded a decision by the District Court for the District of Maryland to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This Court held that a jury could find that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to warrant a hostile work environment and that his employer had notice of the ongoing conduct; it thus denied the defendant company’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed.

The Court granted the defendant Marriott International’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Plaintiff Nagy Edrisse sued Marriott and several of its employees under Title VII, § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiff alleged that the hotel created or tolerated a hostile work environment in that his direct manager made frequent derogatory racial, religious, and ethnic statements, including asking the plaintiff whether he was going to blow up the building and whether he was a terrorist. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that the hotel fired him out of discriminatory animus based on his religion, race, and ethnicity. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was fired due to inappropriate behavior at the workplace (including using racial slurs directed at fellow employees), rather than his race, religion, or ethnicity. The Court dismissed the claim against the employees who were not directly involved, but denied summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the facts were sufficient to make out a prima facie case to move forward. In other words, the Court concluded that a jury could consider the evidence presented to be severe and pervasive enough to allow for a finding of a hostile work environment.

A group of Muslim employees sued their employer, Celestica Corporation, a manufacturing company, and Adecco USA, Inc., a temporary employment agency, under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The plaintiffs alleged discrimination on the basis of religion, and also claimed that the defendants refused to reasonably accommodate their religiously-mandated prayer schedule despite repeated requests. The defendants argued that they offered the plaintiffs options to accommodate their prayer schedule, including changing shifts. The Court, however, found that there was enough evidence to allow a jury to conclude the defendants did not reasonably accommodate the religion of the plaintiffs; it thus denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the Court upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The EEOC brought a case under Title VII on behalf of Asthma Suliman, a Muslim employee of Kelly Services (a temporary employment agency), alleging religious discrimination. Suliman claimed that the company required her to remove her headscarf (khimār) to work at Nahan (one of Kelly’s work placement facilities) because of the risk that loose clothing posed to the wearer due to the heavy machinery. The defendant company argued that, even if the Court determined that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of discrimination, the company had “a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” An earlier precedent, Ollis v. Hearthstone Homes, Inc., recognized the operation of heavy machinery as a legitimate basis for requiring headscarf-removal and as a proper defense to a claim of discrimination in such instances. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that the EEOC could not prove that the employee was discriminated against as a direct result of her religious beliefs, and that the defendant had demonstrated a safety-related reason for the lack of accommodation.

Plaintiff Tarick Ali sued his former employer under Title VII and the D.C. Human Rights Act, claiming he was discriminated against on the basis of his religion. As an EMT and firefighter for the District of Columbia, Ali alleged that the District subjected him to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment after he filed a complaint about his supervisor’s lack of accommodation of his prayer schedule. He alleged that, on several occasions, his direct supervisor told him that he must choose between his religion and job, publicly mocked him when he returned from prayer, and ridiculed him for filing an internal complaint regarding the alleged discrimination. The Court denied the defendant government’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the evidence presented could allow a jury to find that the plaintiff was treated adversely because of his religion and was subjected to a hostile work environment on that basis.

The plaintiff sued her former employer, Neiman Marcus, under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on religion, race, color, and national origin; failure to accommodate her religion; failure to stop harassment; and retaliation for her filing of a religious and national origin discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which allowed her suit to proceed in court. The defendant company argued that, because of the statue of limitations, the plaintiff failed to make a claim. Many of the plaintiff’s claims, including allegations of her co-worker directing racial epithets at her, and being compelled to work on religious holidays, were time-barred and thus could not be introduced to the court. The court found that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination as required by McDonnell Douglas, concluding that she did not prove that she was treated differently because of her religion, race, or national origin. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant company on these claims; however, the Court denied the company’s motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, concluding that a jury could consider allegations that the company permitted so-called sale-stealing, when an employee rings up the sale of a client that a co-worker was working with thereby receiving their commission, to be an adverse employment action in the claim that was not time-barred, and thus the suit on this issue could move forward.

A Pakistani Muslim plaintiff sued her former employer, JP Morgan Chase, under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and disparate treatment. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that she received a lower salary than her co-workers in the same position and that her reasonable requests to work a different shift so she could care for her daughter were denied. The Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court concluded that the incidents that the plaintiff cited to support her claim of a hostile work environment were not severe or pervasive enough to allow a jury to find for the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court did not see any adverse employment action as a result of alleged disparate treatment (which is an element that the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green test for discrimination requires in cases lacking direct evidence). Finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Representing a group of Muslim truck drivers, the EEOC brought suit under Title VII against the group’s employer, Pace Services (a trucking company), alleging that the company subjected them to a hostile work environment. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the company did nothing to stop their supervisor from calling them a variety of derogatory names, such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, and Osama. The company argued a recognized affirmative defense against the discrimination claim by attempting to show that it took reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any racially-discriminatory behavior and that the employee(s) failed to take advantage of said corrections. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant could not prove the essential elements of that defense, and thus, that summary judgment should be granted in their favor. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion, concluding that the defendant had provided evidence sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that they had adequately proved the elements of the affirmative defense.

An unmarried African-American Muslim worker sued the defendant, Del Monte Sales Company, under Title VII and §1981 for discrimination based on race, sex, marital status, and religion, as well as for libel, slander, and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff argued that he was not hired for a job with the defendant due to his race and religion, alleging that his interviewer made derogatory and discriminatory remarks to this effect. The defendant argued that it did not hire the plaintiff because he was not outgoing or pleasant, which are necessary traits for a job as a salesman. The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, which had granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss (noting a lack of evidence offered by the plaintiff).

The plaintiff, Amr Elmenayer, sued his former employer, ABF Freight Systems, for failure to accommodate his religious practices and disparate treatment due to religion under Title VII. The plaintiff alleged that his supervisor failed to grant his reasonable request to attend Friday (jumu'a) prayer services. He also alleged that he was treated more harshly than other non-Muslim employees when he was terminated for failing to report an accident in a timely fashion, as per the company's policy. The defendant argued that it did try to accommodate the plaintiff’s religious practices by encouraging him to bid for a shift that would not conflict with his prayer duties. The Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case of discrimination. This decision was affirmed in Elmenayer v. ABF Freight Sys., 318 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2003).

A Muslim man who sued his employer under Title VII, alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, challenged the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York's decision granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that his employer did not accommodate his religion when it refused to allow him to move his breaks to attend religiously-mandated Friday prayer (jumu'a) services. He further argued that he was treated differently (i.e., punished more severely for infractions such as failing to report an accident immediately) than non-Muslim employees. The Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the instances of alleged discrimination, though not time-barred, were insufficient to create a prima facie case of discrimination. 

Masroor Siddiqui, a Muslim of Pakistani origin, sued his former employer, Autozone, under Title VII, alleging race-based harassment; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion; and retaliation. The plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to a hostile work environment when, after 9/11, he was barraged with racial epithets. He further alleged that he was passed by for promotions because of his race, religion, and national origin (citing comments from his supervisor that they would never promote “people like him”), and that he was ultimately terminated as a result of these factors. The defendant argued that, even if the court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of discrimination, the company legitimately denied the promotion of, and ultimately fired, the employee because of poor work performance. The Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the hostile work environment claim, concluding that no jury would consider the evidence produced by the plaintiff severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim; however, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment in respect to the promotion claim, allowing the case to go forward.

A female Muslim police officer, Kimberlie Webb, sued the City of Philadelphia under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act, alleging religion- and gender-based discrimination. Specifically, the plaintiff objected to the City barring her from wearing a headscarf (ḥijāb) with her police uniform, and argued that the prohibition amounted to a failure to accommodate her right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The City argued that the bar was consistent with Philadelphia Police Directive 78 and that allowing her to wear religious garb would cause an undue burden on the City and the Police Department, in that it would compromise a look of cohesiveness and uniformity among officers. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to exhaust internal remedies regarding her claim of gender discrimination and found the bar on the headscarf to be a compelling state interest. Accordingly, the Court upheld the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granting the City’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff Skwikar Abdelkader alleged a Title VII violation against her former employer, Sears, for failing to accommodate her religion (Islam). The plaintiff alleged that Sears failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by asking her for work on Fridays (the day of communal Muslim prayer services) and on Muslim holidays; she also alleged that the company retaliated against her after she reported the alleged discrimination internally to the Human Resources department. The defendant responded that they neither forced her to work those days nor punished her for refusing to do so; it further noted that she was fired because she violated company policy by allowing a cashier to use her management discount card without the direct supervision required. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, finding that the company equally punished non-Muslims for misuse of the discount card. On that basis, the Court held that no disparate treatment occurred and therefore granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

A former Islamic prison chaplain sued his former employer, the State of Maryland, under Title VII, alleging that the State created a hostile work environment, subjected him to constructive discharge, and was liable for breach of contract for failing to abide by the terms of an earlier attempted settlement. The plaintiff alleged that he was harassed because of his religion for several years, including being involved in physical altercations with other non-Muslim employees, while working as an Islamic chaplain, and that this led to a hostile work environment and to his constructive discharge. The Court dismissed the contract claim, as the state has sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; but the Court denied the State’s motion for summary judgment on the other two counts, concluding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination.

A Muslim female teacher sued her former employer, the Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia, as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination. The defendant school board argued that it suspended and ultimately fired the plaintiff under the Pennsylvania Garb Statue (Public Law No. 282) when she refused to remove her headscarf while teaching. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found in favor of the defendant Commonwealth, but against the School Board. The Third Circuit affirmed the decision against the Commonwealth but reversed the decision against the School Board, holding that, while the statute may present conflicts with the First Amendment, to bring a claim under Title VII, as the plaintiff did, requires proving that the accommodation would not be an undue burden for the employer. The Court further held that allowing teachers to wear religious garb would be an example of an undue burden, as it threatens the religious neutrality of the public school system. The Court upheld the conclusion of the District Court that “the Commonwealth was not [plaintiff’s] employer within the meaning of Title VII."

Plaintiff Syed Shamin brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against his former employer Siemens Industry, Inc. and his former supervisor Chandrashekar Dandekar (collectively, the Respondents). The Plaintiff alleged that after receiving derogatory comments about his accent at work and random “outbursts of yelling, profanity and insults” about his religion and ethnicity by his supervisor, the Plaintiff was discharged. The Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights. After the EEOC mailed the Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights to Sue letter, the Plaintiff commenced this action. The Respondents subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, stating that because the Plaintiff only initially checked the retaliation box on the EEOC claim, the Plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile environment claims are procedurally barred. The Court found that generally, a Title VII plaintiff cannot bring claims in a lawsuit that were not included in his EEOC charge. Therefore, the Court determined that it must not consider the Plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile environment claims, thereby partially granting the Respondent’s motion to dismiss.