286 F. Supp. 3d 884
S.D. Ohio2017Background
- Fourteen Muslim production workers (refugees) who prayed during breaks at an unused area of Jacobson's production floor were told on Jan. 14, 2014 that the space was closed for safety after facility expansion; supervisors offered the breakroom, lobby, fenced patio, restrooms, and outside as alternatives.
- Plaintiffs said the alternatives were unclean, noisy, lacked seclusion and separation for men/women, and outside was cold/unsafe; they refused to use alternatives and left work to pray elsewhere.
- Supervisors (and a 1st Class staffing manager) communicated the change shortly before second shift and deferred detailed discussion until break; a confrontation occurred at the first break, police arrived, and plaintiffs did not return to work; employers treated them as having abandoned/been terminated.
- Plaintiffs filed EEOC charges, later an NLRB charge (settled with reinstatement offers), and then sued under Title VII for failure to reasonably accommodate religion and for retaliation; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact on EEOC exhaustion, whether plaintiffs were discharged or abandoned jobs (causation), whether defendants reasonably accommodated, and whether accommodation would impose undue hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs failed to exhaust EEOC remedies by not attending a fact-finding conference | Counsel had secured EEOC agreement that no clients need attend; late EEOC reversal made attendance impossible; plaintiffs cooperated with EEOC interviews | Nonattendance at the fact-finding conference shows lack of cooperation and warrants dismissal | Denied summary judgment for defendant; court held plaintiffs had cooperated and EEOC did not dismiss for non-cooperation; cooperation requirement should not be read as jurisdictional bar here |
| Whether plaintiffs met prima facie element requiring discharge or discipline for failing to comply with employment requirement | Plaintiffs contend employers effectively discharged them (or constructively discharged them) by refusing acceptable accommodation and threatening firing if they left to pray | Defendants say plaintiffs voluntarily quit/abandoned jobs and were not fired; they offered reasonable alternatives and sought further discussion | Denied summary judgment; factual disputes exist whether plaintiffs were actually or constructively discharged because threats and contemporaneous events permit an inference the terminations were caused by plaintiffs' religious observance |
| Whether defendants offered a reasonable accommodation | Plaintiffs: alternatives were religiously unacceptable (unclean, too public, no gender separation); defendants presented take-it-or-leave-it options and prevented meaningful consultation | Defendants: they reasonably offered all non-production areas and proposed to meet next day; plaintiffs refused to cooperate and made immediate on-the-spot demands | Denied summary judgment; triable factual dispute whether employer’s unilateral process and refusal to consider interim measures made the accommodation unreasonable |
| Whether accommodation would have imposed undue hardship | Plaintiffs point to post-hoc creation of curtained breakroom (low cost) and plausible interim options (shift timing, safety monitor) showing de minimis burden | Defendants cite safety concerns (forklifts, OSHA) and operational disruption; argue no obligation to provide ideal accommodation or immediate on-the-spot solution | Denied summary judgment; evidence that curtains took little time/cost and that interim measures were feasible creates triable issue whether hardship was more than de minimis |
Key Cases Cited
- Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2005) (articulated a cooperation-with-EEOC standard for exhaustion; perfect cooperation not required)
- Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2006) (refused to add cooperation as prerequisite to filing Title VII suit; statutory requirements are limited)
- Goldmeier v. Allstate Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2003) (Sixth Circuit requires discharge or discipline as element of prima facie religious accommodation claim)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (employer need not accommodate if accommodation would cause undue hardship; de minimis test articulated)
- EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015) (Title VII imposes an affirmative obligation to accommodate religious observance beyond mere neutrality)