U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Consol Energy, Inc.
860 F.3d 131
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Beverly R. Butcher, a longtime Consol Energy miner and devout evangelical Christian, objected to a 2012 biometric hand-scanner attendance system on religious grounds (fear of association with the "Mark of the Beast").
- Butcher asked Consol for a religious accommodation; Consol required scanning of the left hand and refused to provide the keypad bypass accommodation that it had given to two employees with hand injuries.
- Facing progressive discipline for missed scans, Butcher retired under protest and later sought other employment; the U.S. EEOC sued Consol on his behalf for failure to accommodate and constructive discharge under Title VII.
- A jury found Consol liable; district court awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages (jury) and $436,860.74 in front/back pay and benefits (court), denied punitive damages, and entered a permanent injunction and training relief.
- Consol appealed (challenging sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, damages, and setoff for pension); EEOC cross-appealed denial of punitive damages. Fourth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butcher had a bona fide religious belief conflicting with the scanner requirement | Butcher sincerely believed any participation in the scanner (right or left hand) violated his religious convictions about the Mark of the Beast | Consol argued there was no conflict because the scanner produced no physical mark and using the left hand would avoid the scriptural prohibition | Held: Jury reasonably found Butcher’s sincere belief conflicted with requirement; courts cannot judge religious plausibility (claim satisfied) |
| Whether Consol failed to reasonably accommodate (and discriminated) | EEOC: Consol offered an inadequate accommodation (left-hand scan) and denied the costless keypad bypass given to others | Consol: Offering left-hand scanning was a reasonable accommodation; no disparate treatment requiring liability | Held: Evidence showed Consol refused a costless, available accommodation it had granted others — unreasonable refusal supports liability |
| Whether Butcher was constructively discharged | EEOC: Requiring participation contrary to sincere beliefs and threatening discipline made working conditions intolerable, forcing resignation | Consol: Butcher voluntarily retired; no intolerable conditions; any grievance procedure could have remedied issues | Held: Under Supreme Court’s Green standard, objective intolerability sufficed — jury could find conditions so intolerable a reasonable person would resign; grievance prospect did not cure immediate intolerability |
| Whether punitive damages were warranted | EEOC: Consol acted with reckless indifference to Title VII rights by denying religious accommodation despite knowledge of obligations | Consol: Management believed its alternative (left-hand use) was sufficient and acted without subjective awareness of violating Title VII | Held: District court correctly granted JMOL on punitive damages — evidence did not show subjective reckless indifference required for punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307 (4th Cir.) (reasonable-accommodation framework under Title VII)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (undue hardship standard for religious accommodation)
- Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (courts must not judge plausibility of religious beliefs)
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (protection extends to sincere beliefs not shared by others)
- Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (2016) (constructive discharge standard: objective intolerability suffices)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (punitive damages in Title VII require malice or reckless indifference)
- EEOC v. Fed. Express Corp., 513 F.3d 360 (4th Cir.) (discusses evidence needed to infer reckless indifference)
- Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 380 (4th Cir.) (treatment of employer-funded pensions as collateral source for setoff analysis)