1
Religious Discrimination – Reasonable Accommodations analysis.
Lukman Alapa
The University of Arizona Global Campus
BUS 624: Law & Ethics in the Business Environment
William Muniak
May 22nd, 2023
2
Religious Discrimination – Reasonable Accommodations analysis
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against
employees based on their protected status. It incorporates two theories of discrimination: (1)
disparate treatment which involve allegations that an employer treated an employee differently
because of the employee’s status which includes race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and
(2) disparate impact which involve allegations that an employer’s policies or practices that are
seemingly neutral or have an advanced impact on members of the group in 1, this alleged
discrimination affects many employees. (Prenkert, J. D. et al. 2022. p. 51-12).
Employers have several defenses such as bona fide occupational qualification, seniority, merit,
and same-decision defense. Plaintiffs have various remedies such as back pay, front pay,
reinstatement, compensatory damages (for emotional distress), punitive damages (in cases of
intentional discrimination), and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. (Prenkert, J. D. et al. 2022.
p. 51-15)
In this paper, I will be analyzing reasonable accommodations in religious discrimination.
I will be using the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to determine if there was a wrongful
termination based on religious discrimination on Ms. Adjha Djarra who was fired by her
supervisor Mr. Ralph Johnson at McFadis Burger joint when she allegedly exercises her religious
right of using a head wrap during the month of Ramadan.
3
Issue
Ms. Djarra a Muslim woman is suing McFadis burger joint and her supervisor Mr. Johnson for
firing her due to discrimination based on her religion. Ms. Djarra was fired from McFadis burger
joint after she refused to remove her head wrap which was the same color as her uniform in
observance of her religious beliefs for a month during Ramadan. Ms. Djarra claimed that Mr.
Johnson was fine with her head wrap for about two weeks until some customers commented on it
to Mr. Johnson which made Mr. Johnson uncomfortable then he asked her to stop wearing her
head scarf and when she refused due to her religious beliefs, she was eventually fired when she
came to work wearing the head wrap.
Rule
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against
employees based on their religion. Initially, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case. To
establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII, the following elements
must generally be met: (1) The employee holds a sincere religious belief, practice, or observance
that conflicts with an employment requirement. (2) The employee informed the employer about
the conflict between their religious beliefs and the employment requirement. (3) The employee
suffered an adverse employment action (e.g., termination, demotion, denial of promotion) due to
religious conflict. (Tiano v. Dillards Department Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998)).
4
Ms. Djarra claims that Mr. Johnson, her supervisor at McFadis burger joint, discriminated
against her based on her religious beliefs. To determine whether she established a prima facie
case of religious discrimination, we need to evaluate whether these elements are present. Ms.
Djarra must demonstrate that she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an
employment requirement. This could include providing evidence of her religious beliefs,
practices, or observances and how they conflict with her work obligations. Ms. Djarra should
have informed Mr. Johnson about the conflict between her religious beliefs and the employment
requirement. It is important to assess whether she made reasonable efforts to request religious
accommodation and whether her request was clear and specific. Ms. Djarra needs to show that
she suffered an adverse employment action because of the religious conflict, such as being
denied a work schedule change, experiencing reduced hours, or facing some other form of
discriminatory treatment.
If Ms. Djarra establishes a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the burden shifts
to Mr. Johnson to show one of two things: (1) that he initiated good faith efforts to accommodate
Ms. Djarra's religious practices which include changes, voluntary shift swaps, and job
reassignments or (2) that he could not reasonably accommodate Ms. Djarra without undue
hardship. If negotiations between Ms. Djarra and Mr. Johnson do not produce a proposal by Mr.
Johnson that would eliminate the religious conflict, then Mr. Johnson must either accept Ms.
Djarra's proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so. (Cloutier v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 136 (1st Cir. 2004)).
5
Analysis
Ms. Djarra came to work for over a week during the month of Ramadan in a head wrap
which is the color of her uniform due to her religious beliefs. She informed her supervisor Mr.
Johnson when she was asked to remove the head wrap after comments from some customers that
she could work with her head wrap and that she is not bothered by the comments, and she was
covering her hair during the month of Ramadan due to her religious beliefs, despite this, Mr.
Johnson fired her when she refused to adhere to his instructions on the head wrap towards the
end of the second week. He terminated her employment without reasonable efforts and good
faith to accommodate Ms. Djarra's religious practices beliefs. By this series of actions, Ms.
Djarra was able to prove that she holds a serious religious belief, she made Mr. Johnson aware
about the conflict that she have between the religious beliefs and her job requirement and she
was fired which is an adverse employment action. These facts establish a prima facie case of
religious discrimination under Title VII.
Mr. Johnson did not make a good faith effort to offer reasonable accommodation to Ms.
Djarra. He did not offer to change her work duties or train her to do something else that will keep
her out of the concerned customers sight during the period of Ramadan, his only recourse was
for her to take unpaid leave which is not economically convenient for Ms. Djarra. Also, Mr.
Johnson was unable to show any proof that McFadis Burger joint will suffer undue hardship due
to reasonable accommodation, he instead, he fired her despite her religious beliefs. This failure
to reasonably accommodate Ms. Djarra's religious beliefs or proof thet her employment will
cause undue hardship to McFadis Burger joint, constitutes a violation of Title VII. Undue
hardship cannot be proved by assumptions nor by opinions based on hypothetical facts, Mr.
6
Johnson's opinion that others may follow Ms. Djarra’s behavior is grounded only in assumptions
and opinions based on a hypothetical scenario. (EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, 432 F. Supp.
2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006)) (quoting Anderson v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CONVAIR, ETC., 589 F.
2d 397(Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1978))
Damages available under Title VII include back pay, front pay, reinstatement, and
compensatory and punitive damages. In this case, Ms. Djarra would be entitled to back pay for
the period between her termination and the date of judgment. Additionally, she may be entitled
to compensatory damages for emotional distress caused by the discriminatory conduct.
Conclusion
Based on the legal analysis, it is clear that Mr. Johnson discriminated against Ms. Djarra
based on her religion and failed to offer reasonable accommodation in violation of Title VII.
Therefore, I would rule in favor of Ms. Djarra and order Mr. Johnson to provide back pay to Ms.
Djarra for the period between her termination and the time of judgment. Additionally, since Ms.
Djarra states that if allowed, she is willing to go back to work at McFadis Burger joint and Mr.
Johnson is willing to offer her the chance to come back, I will rule that Ms. Djarra be reinstated
to her previous position at McFadis Burger joint.
7
References.
Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp. 390 F.3d 126, 136 (1st Cir. 2004)
EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006)
Prenkert, J. D., Barnes, A. J., Perry, J. E., Haugh, T., & Stemler, A. R. (2022). Business
law: The ethical, global, and digital environment (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Tiano v. Dillards Department Stores, Inc. 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998)