An Employee's Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs Could Entitle Her to an Accommodation Request From Fingerprinting Requirement

Kaite v. Altoona Student Transportation, Inc. - United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

Facts:  Bonnie Kaite ("Kaite") began working as a school bus driver for Altoona in 2001.  In 2015, Altoona informed Kaite that in accordance with a newly enacted state law, Kaite would be required to undergo a background check to continue her employment.  The background check required Kaite to be fingerprinted.  Kaite, a devout Christian, told Altoona that according to her sincerely held religious beliefs, she believed the fingerprinting was the "mark of the devil" and if she were fingerprinted, she would not get into Heaven.  She subsequently asked for an accommodation such as a different type of background check that did not require her to be fingerprinted.  Kaite was subsequently informed there was no accommodation available and terminated her for failing to comply with the state's fingerprinting requirement.  However, at least one other employee with "unreadable" fingerprints was allowed to participate in an alternative background check that did not require fingerprinting.

Kaite subsequently filed suit and alleged religious discrimination in violation of Title VII Of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, retaliation in violation of Title VII, and a related claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.  Altoona moved for judgment on the pleadings in regard to Kaite's claims.

Holding:  (Note, this case brief looks only at the religious discrimination portion of the claim.)  Under the applicable standard of review, for Kaite to "survive" Altoona's motion, she had to have plead a cause of action, made allegations that could be interpreted as true, and have a court find that the allegations (if true) could give rise to a valid claim for relief.

Religious Discrimination Claim

As readers might recall, to state a valid religious discrimination cause of action, the employee must show:  1) she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement; 2) she informed her employer of the conflict; and 3) she was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.  If all three factors are established, the burden shifts to the employer to show it either made a good faith effort to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or that such an accommodation would be an undue hardship upon the employer.  (An accommodation creates an undue hardship if it would impose more than a de minimis cost on the employer).  Assuming the employer can satisfy this burden, the employee must then establish that the employer's articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

In this case, the Court held that Kaite had met her initial burden to support this cause of action.  Kaite asserted she had a sincerely held religious belief that the fingerprinting constituted the "mark of the devil", would prevent her from going to Heaven, and that this belief conflicted with her job requirement to undergo a background check.  Kaite had informed Altoona of her sincerely held belief, but as noted, was subsequently terminated for failing to comply with the fingerprinting requirement.  As the Court held, at this stage, that is all that Kaite was required to allege.

The Court was unmoved by Altoona's assertions that the requested accommodation was unreasonable.  Prior precedent had established that "whether a particular accommodation works an undue hardship on either an employer or union must be made by consider 'the particular factual context of each case.'"

Judgment:  The District Court denied Altoona's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Kaite had alleged sufficient facts to establish a cause of action for religious discrimination by her employer, sufficient to proceed ahead with her claim.

The Takeaway:  It has been a while since I came across a fingerprinting/hand scanner religious discrimination claim.  In fact, no relevant cases have jumped out at me since the EEOC v. CONSOL Energy, Inc. case from earlier this year.

With that being said, I always want to caution readers that in many cases, this one included, the Court did not hold that Kaite had a valid claim and judgment would be rendered against her employer.  Instead, the Court held that at this stage of litigation, Kaite had alleged sufficient facts to meet her burden of proof as to the three prongs needed to establish a religious discrimination cause of action.  I think it is important to note that the Court did not delve into the veracity of the allegations made by Kaite.  Instead, the bulk of her allegations were accepted as fact (at this stage of litigation and based upon the motion under consideration by the Court) and when applied to the three factor test, established that she had at the very least established the basis of a valid religious discrimination claim.  Interesting to see how this one turns out.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Gibson

Date:  October 30, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/KaiteAltoona103017.pdf