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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more