Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Comfort Inn Oceanfront South Sued By EEOC for Religious Discrimination

Hotel Group Fired Employee Over Sabbath Issue, Federal Agency Charged

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – The owners/operators of Comfort Inn Oceanfront South in Nags Head, N.C., violated federal law when they failed to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and then fired her because of her religion, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Claudia Neal, who worked as a front desk clerk at Comfort Inn Oceanfront South, is a Seventh-Day Adventist. Neal observes her Sabbath from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. According to the complaint, in November 2010, the defendants’ managers scheduled Neal to work the evening shift on Friday, Dec. 24, 2010. Because the shift interfered with her Sabbath observance, Neal, who had previously been allowed to be off for her Sabbath by other managers at the hotel, explained that she could not work on that evening because of her Sabbath. The hotel managers refused Neal’s request and instead fired her.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accom­modations for the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees as long as doing so does not pose an undue hardship on the employer. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, (EEOC v. Landmark Hotel Group, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Dare Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; Jain and Associates, LP d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South; and JRS Partners, LLC d/b/a Comfort Inn Oceanfront South, Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-158) only after first attempting to reach a pre-litiga­tion settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and reinstatement or front pay. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief.

“Employers must remember their duty to provide an accommodation for the sincerely held religious beliefs of their employees and applicants,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District. “An employee should not needlessly be forced to choose between her faith and her job when there are reasonable ways to accommodate both the employee’s religious observance and the employer’s scheduling needs. This case demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to fighting religious discrimination in the workplace.”

According to company information, Comfort Inn Oceanfront South is a franchised hotel that is a part of the group of hotels operating under the umbrella of the Landmark Hotel Group, LLC, which has over 500 employees. LLC, Dare Hospitality, LLC, Jain and Associates, LP, and JRS Partners, LLC, a Hotel Group, collectively do business as the owners and/or operators of the Comfort Inn Oceanfront South.

© Copyright 2012 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...

800-669-4000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.