Skip to main content

Requiring an Employee Provide a Social Security Number is NOT Religious Discrimination


Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Donald Yeager ("Yeager") applied for an internship with FirstEnergy but the company refused to hire him because Yeager refused to provide a social security number.  Yeager claimed that he had no social security number because he disclaimed and disavowed it on the account of his sincerely held religious beliefs and did not want the "mark of the beast."  Yeager subsequently filed a discrimination claim against FirstEnergy and alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. 

Holding:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Yeager's could not proceed on his claim and subsequently upheld the lower court's dismissal.  Note that to establish a "prima facie case of religious discrimination", a party must prove that (1) he holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he has informed the employer about the conflicts; and (3) he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. Once a party can establish its prima facie case, the employer has the burden to show it could not "reasonably accommodate" the religious beliefs without "undue hardship."  

However, the Court pointed out that Title VII does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs if such an accommodation would violate a federal statute.  In this case, the IRS requires employers such as FirstEnergy collect and provide the social security number of their employees.  Yeager's failure to provide his social security number and then sue when he was not hired for the internship failed to amount to a valid religious discrimination claim.  

Judgment:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Yeager's discrimination lawsuit on the grounds that while state and federal law generally require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, the employer need not provide an accommodation that violates a federal statute. 

The Takeaway:  I think this is one of the more cut and dry cases to have come along recently in regard to religious discrimination.  The Court got it right in this case; sincerely held religious beliefs must be accommodated by an employer (as long as it is not an undue hardship), but when those religious beliefs conflict with a federal statute, the employee is in the grease.  Had Yeager claimed a sincerely held religious belief that did not conflict with a federal statute, such as asking for prayer time while at work or requesting that he be allowed to grow a beard in accordance with his religion, that would likely have been a reasonable accommodation that the employer could have made.  Claiming he refused to have a social security number because it would cause him to have the "mark of the beast"...not so much. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Per Curiam decision

Date:  January 28, 2015

Opinion:   cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/14-3693/14-3693-2015-01-28.pdf?ts=1422468052

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more