Skip to main content
Legal BlogReligious DiscriminationRetaliation

Hospital Worker Fired over Sabbath Observations

By April 14, 2014May 13th, 2014No Comments

A hospital worker requested that she not be scheduled to work Friday evenings and Saturdays in order to accommodate her Sabbath beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist. The employer claimed that it offered to let the worker switch her Friday evening shifts with employees who were not scheduled to work and authorized her access for scheduling data to help her find such employees.

The employee claimed she was not given access to scheduling data, that repeated requests to switch shift with other employees were denied, and that other employees were discouraged or not allowed to switch shifts with her. Believing that her requests were not being addressed, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violation of Title VII and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and was soon thereafter terminated by the employer for what it said was unexcused absences.

She filed federal charges against the employer claiming that the hospital retaliated by creating a hostile work environment when it allowed other employees to mock her religious beliefs, reprimanded her for following her religious convictions, and terminating her after she filed the EEOC complaint.

The employer argued that it either offered her a reasonable accommodation or that doing so would have created an undue hardship. The employee was fired for excessive absenteeism, and poor work performance.

The court held that the timing of the disciplinary measures imposed on the worker raised questions as to the hospital’s true motives, as the employer approved some of the absences, and others were related to the stress she experienced as a result of trying to obtain a religious accommodation.

Employers have a duty to accommodate employees’ religious needs, provided the accommodation does not cause undue hardship. Reasonable accommodations can include modified work schedule, transfers or changes in employees’ assignments, or dress code modifications.  The balancing act required by law was at issue in this case, which allowed the worker to take the facts to the jury!