SHARIAsource

Representing a Muslim former employee of the defendant, the EEOC sued the company, operating as a car dealership, under Title VII, alleging that it subjected the employee to a hostile work environment because of his religion and national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged he suffered numerous instances of harassment because of his religion after 9/11, including being called Taliban by his supervisor and receiving a warning saying he was acting like a Muslim. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the conduct severe or pervasive enough to warrant a hostile work environment claim, and thus reversed the District Court’s granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The case settled in October 2007.

The Plaintiff Akeem Muhammad, an inmate in the Florida penal system, filed suit against the Respondents (prison officials Marvin Davis, Alex Taylor, and R. Graham; the Food Service Administrator of the Fla. Dept. of Corrections; and the Assistant Warden and Warden of Florida State Prison) for their refusal to provide him with a daily pre-fasting meal. The District Court determined that the plaintiff could not sue individual Respondents for monetary damages under RLUIPA. The District Court also determined that the Respondents failed to demonstrate that the policy of refusing to provide Muslim prisoners with a pre-twilight meal during Ramadan is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. Therefore, the District Court denied the Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment on the RLUIPA claim.

Representing an Arab-American Muslim former employee of the Omni Hotels, the EEOC sued the hotel chain under Title VII, alleging religious and national-origin discrimination. The plaintiff claimed that the company fired the employee from his position because he was vocal in his community regarding American-Islamic relations following the events of 9/11. The company argued that his termination resulted from the employee’s lackluster sales at the hotel he was managing, and that the plaintiff resigned for his own personal reasons. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that, while the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of discrimination, it failed to provide evidence showing that the defendant’s defense was a pretext for discriminatory intent.

A Lebanese Muslim physician sued his former employer, represented by Secretary of Veteran Affairs Jim Nicholson, alleging religious and national-origin discrimination under Title VII. The plaintiff claimed that the VA Medical Center, his place of employment, subjected him to a hostile work environment based on his identity as both Lebanese and Muslim [presumably related to his observance of Islamic ritual law] and that his supervisors retaliated against him for filing a claim with the EEOC. He further argued that the employer's discrimination ultimately led to his termination. The Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative options before initiating a lawsuit in court, and that he had not demonstrated that his termination was retaliatory.  

Plaintiffs, Muslim prisoners, sued the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, alleging violations of state and federal law, including the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, § 1983, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiffs alleged that being patted down by female prison guards violated their First Amendment free exercise rights inasmuch as it contravened the tenets of their Islamic faith, which forbids intimate contact between unrelated members of the opposite gender. The Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment for most of the claims, but denied it with respect to the RLUIPA and the Massachusetts General Law claims, concluding that a jury would best be able to determine whether the alleged infraction violated the terms of these two statutes.

The Court affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Jerry Charles, who alleged a violation of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to practice his religion. Specifically, the plaintiff requested accommodations that would allow him to have prayer oil, which he contended was a necessary part of his religious practice. The Department of Corrections challenged RLUIPA as unconstitutional, but the Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute.

Plaintiff Daniel O’Neil Ruffin, the only practicing Muslim in the Downeast Correctional Facility in Machiasport, Maine, brought this suit against the Respondents, facility program manager Carol Geel, facility director Scott Jones, and former commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections Martin Magnusson for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights by denying his request to be allowed to conduct religious services in the common area. The Respondents claimed that they denied the request because it would have been impracticable to assign an officer to supervise a single prisoner, and that they tried to accommodate the Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by allowing him to conduct services in his room. The Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court referred to a Magistrate judge for a recommended decision. The Magistrate judge recommended that the Respondents be entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer would not have known that the challenged conduct violated the Plaintiff’s rights.

The plaintiff, Dominic Ali, a Muslim inmate at the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility, sued several prison officials for allegedly violating his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the state's constitution. The plaintiff alleged that the prison failed to provide jumu'a (Friday prayer) services for Muslim inmates, failed to ensure that he was provided with healthy food during Ramadan (the Islamic month of fasting), and denied him the ability to observe Ramadan by removing his name from the prison's internal Ramadan fasting list. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit. The Court agreed: it found that the plaintiff had not brought his grievances to the attention of the prison's commissioner, and therefore granted the defendants' motion.

The plaintiff, a Turkish Muslim former employee of the defendant, challenged the New York Supreme Court of King’s County decision granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff had sued her previous employer under Executive Law §296 and the Administrative Code of New York §8-107, alleging that the company created a hostile work environment, subjected her to constructive termination, and retaliated against her for filing a discrimination claim. This Court reversed the lower court’s decision on the hostile work environment and constructive discharge, concluding that the plaintiff had presented enough evidence to allow the claims to move forward to a jury.

Plaintiff Kevin Murray, an American taxpayer, sued Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve, arguing that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), which established the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by allowing funds to be used to support companies that invest in sharīʿa-compliant financial instruments. Applying the Lemon Test to assess whether there was excessive entanglement between religion and state related to Islamic financial instruments, the Court concluded that there was not; specifically, it determined that the Islamic financial instruments comprised only a small percentage of the complete business portfolio, that the purpose of the EESA was not religious, and that the primary effect of utilizing the Islamic financial instruments did not support or hinder any religion. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

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.

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 Court granted defendant Freedom Financial Network’s motion for summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging discrimination. Following the EEOC dismissal of his claim, the Court found that the plaintiff, in his second amended complaint, still failed to state a claim warranting relief despite being given several chances to amend his complaint. Plaintiff Reginald Ringgold was an employee of defendant and claimed that he was fired because he was a Muslim and a Free Moorish American National. The defendant responded that it let the employee go because he claimed to be a tax-exempt non-citizen of the United States on several occasions, but his documentation showed that he was born in Connecticut. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that his employer knew he was a Muslim or Free Moorish American National, and thus there was no actionable claim of discrimination.

An Iranian Muslim teacher sued his former employer, the Memphis Board of Education, under Title VII, alleging retaliation and discrimination on the basis of national origin and religion. The plaintiff argued that he was denied a permanent, full-time position because of his race and religion. The defendant argued that the denial was because the plaintiff received several unsatisfactory reports while serving in substitute positions. At trial, the U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination and that the defendant had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for refusing to offer the plaintiff a permanent position.

A Pakistani Muslim professor sued her former employer under Title VII, alleging discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin. The plaintiff argued that she was denied tenure because of her religion and race, pointing to instances in which several members of the deciding committee had allegedly articulated biases against Muslims and Pakistanis. The defendant argued that it offered the position to the most qualified applicant, who was not the plaintiff. The Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff did not offer any direct evidence of discrimination nor did she prove that she was more qualified than the other successful candidate (which is necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the absence of direct evidence).

A Muslim employee of the U.S. Army, who was a Syrian of Turkish origin, sued his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII, alleging discrimination on the basis of age and of religion and national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that he was not offered a position after previously resigning because of his age, religion, and national origin. The defendant argued that he was not rehired because of poor work performance on past assignments. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that the defendant presented legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for not rehiring plaintiff that the plaintiff did not rebut.

An Arab Muslim professor sued his former employer, Saint Francis College, under Title VII, §1981, §1983, §1985(3), §1986, and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act, alleging that the College denied him tenure because he was an Arab Muslim. At the trial level, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the College’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded that decision, holding that discrimination against Arabs constitutes racial discrimination, and that the statute of limitations restrictions imposed by the lower court were incorrectly applied, as the acts in question occurred before the statute of limitations was passed into law.

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 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.

The plaintiff, Sefidkar Janali, a Shi'a Muslim, claimed that he should be allowed to attend a worship service apart from Sunni Muslims. The plaintiff alleged that the prison violated his First Amendment rights and RLUIPA because Muslims are not allowed different worship times, while other denominations have separate times. The plaintiff also alleged that he should be provided a ḥalāl diet (upon entering the prison, he was given the choice of a regular meal, vegetarian meal, or Jewish Kosher meals). The District Court found that the prison officials did not violate the plaintiff's First Amendment or RLUIPA rights because there were legitimate security and administrative concerns with offering separate Shi'a and Sunni services. The District Court similarly found that the meal options provided for Muslim inmates was adequate because they were lawful options for Muslims. The District Court therefore granted summary judgment for the respondents.