Skip to main content

Updated: EEOC v. CONSOL Energy, Inc. (Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)


Back in 2015, a verdict was awarded in a case in favor of an employee who brought suit against CONSOL Energy, Inc. ("CONSOL") on the grounds that the company failed to accommodate the employee's refusal to use a biometric hand scanner at work on the grounds that it conflicted with the employee's religious beliefs.  CONSOL subsequently appealed the verdict and earlier this month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in favor of the employee.


Facts:  For those needing a refresher, Beverly Butcher, Jr. ("Butcher") worked as a coal miner at a mine owned by CONSOL.  When CONSOL implemented a biometric hand scanner to track its employees, Butcher objected and informed his supervisors that his religious beliefs prevented him from using the system.  (Butcher believed using the hand scanner would "mark" him the sign of the beast and allow the Antichrist to control him.)  Although CONSOL provided an alternative to employees who would not use the hand scanner for religious reasons or because of injury, it refused to accommodate Butcher's request.  (Butcher offered to check in with his shift supervisor or punch in on a time clock, which he had done in the past while working at the mine.)  As a result, given the option of choosing between his religious beliefs/commitments and continuing working at the mind, Butcher retired under protest.  

After the EEOC brought suit on behalf of Butcher, a jury verdict was returned in favor of Butcher and awarded him compensatory damages and lost wages and benefits.  CONSOL's post verdict motions seeking judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and amendment of the district court's findings in regard to lost wages were denied by the district court.  CONSOL subsequently brought its appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Holding:  After review of the verdict in favor of Butcher, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CONSOL failed to accommodate Butcher's religious beliefs and constructively discharged him.  Under Title VII, an employer must "make reasonable accommodation for the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship."  An employee can show a violation of the "reasonable accommodation" duty by showing:  1) he/she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; 2) he/she informed the employer of this belief; and 3) he/she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.

The heart of CONSOL's defense centered around a claim that it could not be established that Butcher could not use the scanner system without compromising his beliefs in regard to the mark of the beast.  However, the Fourth Circuit disagreed and found that Butcher had "carefully and clearly" laid out his religious objection to the use of the scanner system (even though it left no physical mark on him).  The Court noted it was not CONSOL's place as the employer to question the correctness (or plausibility) of Butcher's religious beliefs.  The facts established that Butcher had sincerely held religious beliefs which prevented him from using the hand scanner, as evidenced by his testimony and letters he had provided to CONSOL previously.  Although he proposed several alternatives (which had been utilized before and were currently being utilized by other employees), the Court held that CONSOL unlawfully refused Butcher's accommodation request.

Judgment:  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in favor of the employee on the grounds that the employer had unlawfully failed to accommodate the employee's religious accommodation request in regard to the employee's objection to the use of a biometric hand scanner at work because of the employee's religious beliefs.

The Takeaway:  Back in 2015 when I wrote about the lower court's ruling, I mentioned that this case might not be the bell weather ruling for religious accommodation requests, but employers should certainly take heed.  Perhaps what really doomed CONSOL in this case might be the fact that they failed to accept either of Butcher's proposed accommodation requests (which the Court seemed to suggest were reasonable and not overly burdensome for CONSOL to accept/implement) which for all intents and purposes appeared to be reasonable.  The fact that other employees at the mine were allowed to not use the hand scanner (because of injuries) further harmed CONSOL's argument.  It is one thing to say that an accommodation request is overly burdensome or cost prohibitive.  However, in this instance, when other employees are offered an accommodation for their injuries but an employee with sincerely held religious beliefs is denied that same accommodation, that can prove fatal to an employer's defense in this type of Title VII religious discrimination claim.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Harris

Date:  June 12, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/EEOCConsul061217.pdf

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

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

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more