Justice Department Settles Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Berkeley School District in Illinois

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 13, 2011

Justice Department Settles Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Berkeley School District in Illinois

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has entered into a consent decree with the Board of Education of Berkeley School District 87 in Berkeley, Ill. that, if approved by the court, will resolve a religious accommodations lawsuit filed in December 2010. In its lawsuit, the United States alleged that the school district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of Safoorah Khan, a Muslim teacher at McArthur Middle School.
“Employees should not have to choose between practicing their religion and their jobs,” said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The facts of this case show the consequences of an employer refusing to engage in any interactive process to understand and work with an employee to find an accommodation of the employee’s religious beliefs that will not cause undue hardship to the employer. We are pleased that Berkeley School District has agreed to implement a training program that puts into place an interactive process to ensure that each request for a religious accommodation will be considered on a case-by-case basis and granted if it poses no undue hardship on the school district.”
The government’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, alleged that Ms. Khan requested an unpaid leave of absence in December 2008 to perform Hajj, a pilgrimage required by her religion, Islam. According to the complaint, Berkeley School District denied Ms. Khan a reasonable accommodation of her religious practice, compelling Ms. Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, thus forcing her discharge. The United States also alleged that the school district maintains a policy under which it refuses to grant leave to non-tenured teachers as an accommodation for their religious practices if the leave requested is not already provided for in the school district’s leave policy.
The lawsuit was based on a charge of discrimination filed by Ms. Khan with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Ms. Khan’s charge, finding reasonable cause to believe that Berkeley School District had discriminated against Ms. Khan, and unsuccessfully attempting to conciliate the matter, the EEOC referred the charge to the Department of Justice.
Under the terms of the consent decree, Berkeley School District will pay $75,000 to Ms. Khan for lost back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. Berkeley School District also is required to develop and distribute a religious accommodation policy consistent with Title VII’s requirement to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs, practices and/or observances of all employees and prospective employees. In addition, Berkeley School District is required to provide mandatory training on religious accommodation to all board of education members, supervisors, managers, administrators and human resources officials who participate in decisions on religious accommodation requests made by its employees and prospective employees.
This is the first lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a pilot project designed to ensure vigorous enforcement of Title VII against state and local governmental employers by enhancing cooperation between the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division.
“As the favorable resolution of this case demonstrates, closer collaboration between the EEOC and the Department of Justice will strengthen the enforcement of this nation’s civil rights laws,” said Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair of the EEOC. “Our partnership is critical to ensuring that workplaces are free of bias.”
Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of gender, race, color, national origin or religion, and prohibits retaliation against an employee who opposes an unlawful employment practice, or because the employee has made a charge or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the Act. More information about Title VII and other federal employment laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/index.html.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
11-1362
Civil Rights Division

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/October/11-crt-1362.html

Muslims Turn More Often to EEOC to Resolve Workplace Discrimination

Workforce.com
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been actively pursuing cases in which Muslims have been discriminated against since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York, says an attorney with the commission. By Judy Greenwald
October 2010

Discrimination claims filed by Muslims with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were increasing before controversy erupted over a planned Islamic community center blocks from New York’s ground zero.
The number of claims more than doubled to 1,490 in fiscal 2009, which ended Sept. 30, from 697 in fiscal 2004, according to the agency. These claims resulted in 803 EEOC charges, which can include more than one claim.
Of the 10,005 claims concerning discrimination against Muslims in the past 10 years, the most frequent was discharge (2,722), followed by harassment (1,861) and terms and conditions of employment (1,419).

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/legal/muslims-turn-more-often-eeoc-resolve-workplace/index.php

Muslim Group Reports Jump in Workplace Bias Complaints

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Sep 24, 2008 11:40 ET
CAIR: Reports of Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes and Violence Decrease in 2007
News Release

WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - September 24, 2008) - A report released today by a prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group shows an increase in American Muslim complaints of workplace bias in 2007.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) report, called "Without Fear of Discrimination," outlines 2,652 incidents and experiences of anti-Muslim violence, discrimination and harassment in 2007. That is the highest number of civil rights cases ever recorded in the Washington-based group's report -- the only annual study of its kind. (Note: The higher number of cases is due in part to inclusion of a new category of cases related to mailed, faxed and e-mailed hate messages. Without the inclusion of those cases, the total number of cases dipped slightly over the previous year.)
According to the study, discrimination in the workplace against those already employed increased by 18 percent, with 384 cases reported in 2006 and 452 cases reported in 2007. There was also a 34 percent increase in reports of discrimination against those seeking employment. Cases involving denial of religious accommodation in the workplace jumped eight percent.
Since its founding in 1994, one of the main categories of CAIR's work has been employment discrimination and religious accommodation issues in the workplace. One of the most recent cases CAIR is dealing with involves religious accommodation for Muslim workers at JBS Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in Colorado and Nebraska. Another recent case involved allegations of a new "English-only" policy for Somali Muslim workers at a Macy's department store in Minnesota.
SEE: Muslim Group Tries Mediation in Lunch Break Spat http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17453619/detail.html
SEE ALSO: Macy's Case Highlights Confusion Over English-Only Rules (NPR) http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/22/somali_macys/
CAIR offers a booklet called "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices" to help corporate managers gain a better understanding of Islam and Muslims in the workplace.
SEE: An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/employment_guide.pdf
Reports of passenger profiling jumped from 32 in 2006 to 141 in 2007, a 340 percent increase.
Some categories in the CAIR report showed a decrease in the number of cases. Incidents of anti-Muslim hate crimes went down by 19 percent in this year's report. Incidents at schools or involving the police also decreased 31 percent and 42 percent respectively.
Marked decreases in cases involving due process issues (45 percent), physical violence (24 percent), denials of service or access (48 percent), and verbal harassment (35 percent) were also recorded.
Nine states and the District of Columbia accounted for almost 80 percent of all civil rights complaints to CAIR in 2007. The states include: California, Illinois, Florida, New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
Consistent with previous years, an individual's ethnicity, associations, religion, or "Muslim name" remained the primary factors that triggered discrimination. These factors are believed to have triggered 86 percent of the total cases reported to CAIR last year.
CAIR said the decrease in reports of hate crimes and reports of discrimination by police and in schools during 2007 allows "a note of cautious optimism." The report also concluded: "Some government agencies appear to be benefiting from an emphasis on cultural proficiency for employees who may deal with Muslims."
Recommendations based on this year's data included asking elected representatives, public officials and candidates for elected office to "clearly condemn anti-Islam bias in our society" and urging American Muslim groups to "continue to maintain regular contacts with law enforcement agencies at the national, state and local levels." The report also urged the passage of legislation banning racial, religious or ethnic profiling.
To view the entire report, go to: http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/civilrights2008.pdf
"The year's report is a somewhat positive indication that the growing anti-Muslim rhetoric in our society is being rejected by ordinary Americans of all faiths," said CAIR Legislative Director Corey Saylor, the report's author.
Saylor said this year's report includes a special section on "Anti-Muslim Remarks and Acts on the Presidential Campaign Trail." Last week, CAIR filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) over the distribution of some 28 million anti-Muslim DVDs in presidential election swing states.
SEE: Muslim Group Seeks Probe of 'Radical Islam' DVD (AP) http://www.charlotteobserver.com/nation/story/210582.html
CAIR began documenting anti-Muslim incidents following the 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
The council is America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, with 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CONTACT:CAIR Legislative Director Corey Saylor
202-384-8857
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/rel_us_print.jsp?id=903482

EEOC Sues JBS Swift for Religious and National Origin Discrimination in Colorado and Nebraska

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
8-31-10

Meat Packer Harassed Somali Muslim Employees, Refused to Accommodate Their Prayer Needs, Federal Agency Charges

DENVER – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed two lawsuits today in federal court alleging that JBS USA, LLC, which does business as meat packing company JBS Swift & Company, discriminated against a class of Somali and Muslim employees at its facilities in Greeley, Colo. (its headquarters facility), and Grand Island, Neb.
The suits allege that JBS Swift created a hostile work environment for its Somali and Muslim employees due to their race, national origin, and religion. The complaints allege that supervisors and coworkers threw blood, meat, and bones at the Muslim employees and called them offensive names. The complaint filed in Colorado alleges that there was offensive graffiti in the restrooms at the Greeley facility, EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC d/b/a JBS Swift & Company, 10-CV-02103 PAB-KUM (D. Colo.), which included comments such as “Somalis are disgusting” and “F..k Somalians”, “F--k Muslims, and “F--k Mohammed.” The suit filed in Nebraska alleges that supervisors and coworkers made comments to Somali employees at the Grand Island facility such as “lazy Somali” and “go back to your country.” EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC d/b/a JBS Swift & Company, 8:10-cv-00318-TDT (D. Neb.).
The two complaints include allegations that JBS Swift engaged in a pattern or practice of religious discrimination when it failed to reasonably accommodate its Muslim employees by refusing to allow them to pray according to their religious tenets. Both complaints further allege that JBS Swift retaliated against the employees by terminating their employment when they requested that their evening break be moved so that they could break their fast and pray at sundown during the month of Ramadan, an Islamic holiday requiring a daytime fast from sunup to sundown.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This litigation originated from the filing multiple charges of discrimination with the EEOC. During 2008, the EEOC received 83 discrimination charges from employees at the Greeley facility and 85 from employees at the Grand Isle facility alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, race, color or national origin. The charges of discrimination were jointly investigated by the EEOC, the Colorado Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies, and the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission.
“The issue of national origin and religious discrimination in the workplace has become more significant as more immigrants with different ethnic and religious backgrounds join our workforce,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “The laws of this country prohibit harassment based on national origin, and mandate that employers accommodate employees’ religious practices so long as doing so does not create an undue burden on the employer.”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-31-10.cfm

EEOC Issues Discussion Letter on Religious Accommodation

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has posted an informal discussion letter on its website and gives guidance on a question of religious accommodation when an employee (Muslim) refuses to shake hands with an African-American female employee on religious grounds. Accommodating the Muslim employee's wish not to shake hands with women could violate Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination.

Title VII: Religious Discrimination – Religious Accommodation – Sex Discrimination
November 20, 2009
Dear ______________:
This responds to your letter dated August 28, 2009, to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (Commission’s or EEOC’s) Greenville Local Office, which was referred to the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel for consideration. I apologize for the delay in answering you.
As set forth in your August 28th letter, you have a client that recently hired a male employee and flew him to the company’s location to meet colleagues and look for a house. When he was visiting the office, an African-American colleague offered her hand to greet him but he refused to shake hands. The new employee explained that he did not touch women because of his Muslim religion. When a human resources manager spoke with him about the incident, the new employee said that it was the co-worker’s female gender, not her race, which prompted his response.
In light of this incident, your client expressed concern that accommodating the new employee’s religious beliefs may conflict with its policy prohibiting sex discrimination in the workplace. Your client also anticipated that if the new employee refuses “to shake [female clients’] hands, [there would be] a negative impact on the employees’ [sic] ability to get their business and . . . be successful on his own behalf as well as on the employer’s behalf.”1
I. Religious Accommodation
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Title VII provides that, once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely-held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement or policy, it must provide a reasonable accommodation enabling the employee to exercise his beliefs, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship.2 A religious accommodation poses an undue hardship if it involves “more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business.3
A. Religious Accommodation that Impacts Co-Workers
The question here is whether it is an undue hardship for your client to accommodate its new employee’s religious practice of not shaking hands with women. We are not aware of any decisions in which federal courts have decided whether such an accommodation poses an undue hardship due to co-workers’ reactions. With respect to accommodating religious expression generally, however, courts have found, and the Commission has stated, that encroaching on co-workers’ ability to perform their duties or subjecting or threatening to subject co-workers to a hostile work environment “will generally constitute undue hardship.”4 For example, in Wilson v. U.S. West Communications,5 the court concluded that an employer was not required to accommodate the plaintiff’s wearing of a graphic anti-abortion button at work where doing so caused serious disruptions among co-workers.6 In Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Company, where, in response to a diversity program, the plaintiff posted controversial biblical verses that targeted some of his co-workers and were “intended to be hurtful,” the court found that allowing the posters would be an undue hardship for the employer.7 At the same time, a showing of undue hardship requires more than speculation about negative consequences or expressions of discomfort, irritation, or annoyance by co-workers; undue hardship “generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of co-workers or cause disruption of work.”8 Your client should make a fact-specific inquiry into the actual disruptions that have occurred and the level of concern in its workforce about the “no handshake” practice.
B. Religious Accommodation That Impacts Customers
Your client also fears that female customers may take offense regarding the employee’s “no handshake” practice, which in turn “would have a negative impact on the employees’ [sic] ability to get their business and . . . be successful in his own behalf as well as on the employer’s behalf.”9 In assessing whether customers’ objections to an employee's religious practice poses an undue hardship, the question again is the extent to which your client’s concerns are speculative or based on actual events involving more than minimal disruptions to its business.
The courts also are inclined to find undue hardship if the employee’s religious expression can be perceived by customers as the employer’s own message. The Commission has explained:
For example, one court found that it did not impose an undue hardship for a private sector employer to allow a cashier to use the general religious greeting “Have a Blessed Day” in accepting payment where it was said in the context of brief anonymous interactions and had little demonstrable adverse impact on customers or the business. However, other courts have found undue hardship where religiously oriented expression was used in the context of a regular business interaction with a client. Whether or not the client objects, this may be an undue hardship for an employer where the expression could be mistaken as the employer’s message.10
To the extent that your client is concerned that its new employee’s practice will portray it as unfriendly to female customers, your client can focus broadly on the new employee’s overall friendliness and social and sales skills with female customers, above and beyond his “no handshake” practice. It would be relevant if he has good sales with female customers and is generally well-liked; conversely, it also would be relevant if he declines to shake hands with female customers in a manner that conveys negativity about women. These determinations are intensely fact-specific and your client should be careful to avoid speculation.
II. Sex Discrimination
Your client also fears that, by allowing a male employee to refuse to shake hands with female co-workers for religious reasons, it will countenance unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Title VII prohibits gender-based employment practices and/or conduct, which involve disadvantageous terms and conditions of employment or severe or pervasive harassment.11
In its Compliance Manual, the Commission explained why a religious accommodation that results in harassment on the basis of religion would pose an undue hardship; the same reasoning would seem applicable to deciding whether a religious accommodation would result in harassment on the basis of sex. The Commission stated:
Since an employer has a duty under Title VII to protect employees from religious harassment, it would be an undue hardship to accommodate such expression. As explained in § III-A-2-b of this document, religious expression directed toward co-workers might constitute harassment in some situations, for example where it is facially abusive (i.e., demeans people of other religions), or where, even if not abusive, it persists even though the co-workers to whom it is directed have made clear that it is unwelcome. It is necessary to make a case-by-case determination regarding whether the effect on co-workers actually is an undue hardship. However, this does not require waiting until the alleged harassment has become severe or pervasive. As with harassment on any basis, it is permitted and advisable for employers to take action to stop alleged harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive, because while isolated incidents of harassment generally do not violate federal law, a pattern of such incidents may be unlawful.12
In assessing the potential for sex discrimination, an important question for your client to consider is whether the new employee implements his “no handshake” practice in a neutral manner or, by contrast, whether he does so in a manner that is actually hostile or demeaning to women. The extent to which this new employee is developing comfortable working relationships with female co-workers, despite his “no handshake” practice, would seem highly relevant.
While your client and its new employee may find an effective religious accommodation, your client should avoid accommodations that would foster sex discrimination, for example, adopting a male-only client policy for the employee, or restricting his interactions to male co-workers. If, in the future, the employee’s “no handshake” practice conveys an intent to demean based on gender, “it is permitted and advisable for [your client] to take action to stop [the] alleged harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive. . . .”13
III. Potential Follow-up
As noted in your letter, your client itself proposed conducting some form of diversity training for its workforce, which could include providing information about Islamic religious practices. Your client’s proposal may help to alleviate possible tension and/or discomfort surrounding its new employee’s practice of declining to shake hands with women for religious reasons.
We hope this information is helpful. Please note that this letter is an informal discussion of the issues you raised and does not constitute an official opinion of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you have further questions, please contact Carol Miaskoff at 202.663.4645 or Tanisha Wilburn at 202.663.4909.
Sincerely, Peggy R. MastroianniAssociate Legal Counsel
Footnotes
1 August 28, 2009 letter at page 2.
2 42 U.S.C. 2000e (j); 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b). See also EEOC COMPL. MAN., § 12, “RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION,” § 12-IV (July 22, 2008), available at, http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_ftnref116.
3 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, supra note 2, § 12-IV, B.
4 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, supra note 2, § 12-IV, B.4.
5 58 F.3d 1337, 1341-42 (8th Cir. 1995).
6 Id. at 1339-40. The disruptions cited included: a forty percent decline in productivity that resulted from employees gathering to discuss the button; co-worker protests in the form of refusing to attend work meetings with plaintiff present; employees filing grievances against the employer for its perceived failure to resolve the dispute; and employees threatening walkouts.
7 358 F.3d 599, 607-608 (9th Cir. 2004). The court reasoned that accommodating the plaintiff’s religious expression would have created an undue hardship for the employer because “it would have inhibited [the employer’s] efforts to attract and retain a qualified, diverse workforce, which the [employer] reasonably view[ed] as vital to its commercial success.”
8 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, supra note 2, § 12-IV B.6.b.
9 August 28, 2009 letter at page 2.
10 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, supra note 2, § 12-IV, C.6.b.
11 See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (indicating that Title VII prohibits harassment where “members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other are not exposed”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 760 F. Supp. 1486, 1522 (M.D. Fl. 1991) (indicating that gender-based harassment can involve “harassing behavior lacking a sexually explicit content but directed at women and motivated by animus against women. . . .”).
12 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, supra note 2, § 12-IV, C.6.a.
13 Id.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2009/religionhandshakeletter.redacted%20for%20posting.final.html

MINNESOTA FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL OF EEOC RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION SUITS

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-31-09

Prayer Breaks Sought by Muslim Employees to be Instituted; Total of $365,000 to be Paid, Job Offers Made in Two Cases

MINNEAPOLIS – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham of the U.S. District Court in St. Paul, Minn., has ordered final approval of consent decrees settling two religious discrimination lawsuits brought by the EEOC against a leading St. Cloud, Minn.-based chicken processor, Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc., and an employment agency, The Work Connection.
Under the decree approved in the Gold’n Plump case, the employer will add a paid break during the second half of each shift which will accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim employees who wish to pray in the course of the work day. The break is in addition to a break early in the shift and lunch breaks which are required by law. The timing of the added break will fluctuate during the year to coordinate with the religious timing for Muslim prayers. The new break times will apply to all who work in a designated portion of the plant, regardless of religious faith.
“Employers need to recognize the increasing diversity of religion in our country and provide accommodations as required by federal employment discrimination laws,” stated EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Systemic cases such as these make workplaces better for many individuals.”
In addition to other related relief, Gold’n Plump will provide $215,000 to a class of 128 Somali American Muslims who claimed religious discrimination, including discharge and discipline. An additional $150,000 will be paid to 28 class members under the consent decree entered in EEOC v. The Work Connection. EEOC attorneys determined the amount each of the 156 individuals will receive. The amount ranges from $200 to $18,880 per person. Most class members will receive between $500 and $1,500. The recipients and amounts of the payment were approved by the court.
The EEOC had alleged in EEOC v. The Work Connection that, in order to be referred for work at Gold’n Plump’s facilities in Cold Spring, Minn., and Arcadia, Wis., applicants were required to sign a form stating that they would not refuse to handle pork in the course of their jobs. In addition to stopping use of the “pork form,” The Work Connection will provide each of the 28 class members, job seekers previously turned away for refusing to sign the “pork form,” with an offer for placement at Gold’n Plump. The decrees in both cases prohibit retaliation by the employers and provide for training and reporting to the EEOC.
EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, “The court’s final approval of this settlement validates the progress the parties had made in providing an acceptable solution to the conflict between the religious obligations of the Muslim workers and the efficient operation of Gold’n Plump’s business. The settlement was achieved because the parties pursued a solution collaboratively.”
EEOC Trial Attorney Nick Pladson in Minneapolis (part of the agency’s Chicago district), added, “When employees identify aspects of their religious beliefs that conflict with their employment, employers must engage these workers to explore solutions. Employers who take a ‘my way or the highway’ approach to requests for religious accommodation clearly do so at their peril.”
The EEOC lawsuits were filed Sept. 8, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, St. Paul Division. (EEOC v. Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc., 0:08-cv-05136-DSD-JJG; EEOC v. The Work Connection, 0:08-cv-05137-DSD-JJG). The EEOC cases are docketed as related cases to a private case previously filed in the same court by certain of the class members (Aware Daud, et al. v. Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc. and The Work Connection, 0:06-cv-04013-DSD-JJG). The court had granted preliminary approval to the consent decrees on Nov. 7, 2007. In the interim since the preliminary approval, the EEOC assessed claims for monetary relief received from class members. The amounts determined by the EEOC were provided for in the consent decree finally approved by the court. In addition to Hendrickson and Pladson, the EEOC was represented by Associate Regional Attorney Jean Kamp.
The consent decrees were the result of a series of mediation sessions conducted by Magistrate Judge Graham and by retired federal Magistrate Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff.
Religious discrimination charge filings with EEOC offices nationwide increased to a record level of 3,273 in Fiscal Year 2008, a 13.6% jump over FY 2007. On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued a new Compliance Manual Section regarding religious discrimination, harassment, and accommodation. The EEOC issued this Section in response to an increase in charges of religious discrimination, increased religious diversity in the United States, and requests for guidance from stakeholders and agency personnel investigating and litigating claims of religious discrimination. The Section is available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

GOLD’N PLUMP AND THE WORK CONNECTION SETTLE SUITS BY EEOC FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2008

Prayer Breaks Sought by Muslim Employees to be Instituted; Total of $365,000 to be Paid in Two Cases
MINNEAPOLIS – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that a federal district court in St. Paul, Minn., recently approved consent decrees that settle two religious discrimination lawsuits against a leading St. Cloud, Minn.-based chicken processor, Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc., and an employment agency, The Work Connection, which referred workers to it.
Under the decree preliminarily approved in the Gold’n Plump case, the employer will add a paid break during the second half of each shift which -- in addition to a break early in the shift and lunch breaks otherwise required by applicable law -- will accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim employees who wish to pray during the course of the work day. The timing of the added break will fluctuate during the year so as to coordinate with the religious timing for Muslim prayers.
In addition to other related relief, Gold’n Plump will provide $215,000 in monetary relief to a class of Somali Muslims who claimed religious discrimination, including discharge and discipline. An additional $150,000 will be paid to class members under the consent decree entered in The Work Connection case. EEOC attorneys estimate that the total number of individuals receiving monetary relief in the cases after claims processing will be in the 40 to 80 range.
The decree in The Work Connection case has also been given preliminary approval and entered by the court. The EEOC had alleged in The Work Connection case that, in order to be referred for work at Gold’n Plump’s facilities in Cold Spring, Minn., and Arcadia, Wis., applicants were required to sign a form stating that they would not refuse to handle pork in the course of their jobs. In addition to stopping use of the “pork form,” The Work Connection will offer placement at Gold’n Plump to job seekers previously turned away for refusing to sign the form.
The EEOC held that both companies violated the religious discrimination prohibition of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decrees in both cases prohibit retaliation by the employers and provide for training and reporting to the EEOC.
The consent decrees were the result of a series of mediation sessions conducted by federal Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham of the St. Paul Division of U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and by retired federal Magistrate Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff. The EEOC joined the mediation as part of the conciliation process. Final approval and entry by the court of the consent decrees will occur after claims for relief are processed, and the court approves individual monetary distributions.
“Both of these cases reflect the EEOC’s determination, especially in this post-9/11 era, to be sensitive to the high level of religious diversity in the American labor force and to assure that all employers and employees do their best to accommodate our rich tapestry of religious beliefs and practices,” said Ronald S. Cooper, the EEOC’s General Counsel in Washington, D.C. “We are especially pleased that the employers shared our determination to reach a just and equitable result and that everyone will be able to avoid the burdens and delay of protracted litigation.”
Cooper noted that the EEOC participates in the Interagency Workgroup on Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian American Communities convened by the U.S. Department of Justice to address issues of concern to those communities in the wake of the events of 9/11.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney for the Chicago District, which includes Minnesota, added, “These were complicated cases in which real differences posed real challenges. But everyone came to the table with the goal of finding a solution which would accommodate the needs of Gold’n Plump and The Work Connection to continue to conduct business and, at the same time, respect and accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of their employees. In the end, cooperation and common sense prevailed, and today’s consent decrees are the result.”
The EEOC’s lawsuits were filed Sept. 8, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, St. Paul Division. (EEOC v. Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc., 0:08-cv-05136-DSD-JJG; EEOC v. The Work Connection, 0:08-cv-05137-DSD-JJG). The EEOC cases are docketed as related cases to a private case previously filed in the same court by certain of the class members. (Aware Daud, et al. v. Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc. and The Work Connection, 0:06-cv-04013-DSD-JJG). In addition to Hendrickson, the EEOC was represented by Associate Regional Attorney Jean Kamp and Nicholas Pladson, an EEOC trial attorney in the Minneapolis Area Office.
On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued a new Compliance Manual Section regarding religious discrimination, harassment and accommodation. The EEOC issued this section in response to an increase in charges of religious discrimination, increased religious diversity in the United States, and requests for guidance from stakeholders and agency personnel investigating and litigating claims of religious discrimination. Religious discrimination charge filings with the EEOC nationwide have risen substantially over the past 15 years, doubling from 1,388 in Fiscal Year 1992 to a record level of 2,880 in FY 2007.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.