Advertisement

April 24, 2014

Recent Ruling Demonstrates That You Might Find Religion Where You Least Expect It

​A ruling from an Ohio federal court warns that a religious discrimination claim can arise from of a set of beliefs that an employer might not ordinarily equate with religion. In Chenzira v. Cincinnati Childrens’ Hospital Medical Center, an employee alleged that she was discharged because she refused to take a flu vaccination, which the hospital required of its employees. Ms. Chenzira objected to the vaccination because she was a vegan – a person who does not ingest animals or animal bi-products – and the vaccination contained animal bi-products. The employee claimed that her discharge constituted religious discrimination and that the employer unlawfully denied her request for religious accommodation, which was an exception to the employer’s vaccination requirement.

The employer moved to dismiss the employee’s lawsuit on grounds that veganism is not a religion, but rather is a dietary preference or social philosophy. The employee responded that her practice constituted “a moral and ethical belief that is sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views” consistent with established Supreme Court rulings as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations, which provides as follows:

"Whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not an issue . . . the Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of religious views."

The court sided with the employee because at the very beginning pleading stage of the case, all she needed to show was that she had a plausible claim. The Court found it plausible that the employee could hold to veganism with a sincerity equivalent to traditional religious views and therefore denied the motion to dismiss. That is not to say that the employee will ultimately be able to prove that veganism is a religious practice or that the employer could not prove a defense justifying its denial of her request for an accommodation. The case does, however, act as a warning to employers that requests for accommodation based on non-traditional religious views should be given the same careful analysis as those arising under traditional religions. If faced with an employee’s accommodation request based on a firmly held set of beliefs, employers should consult employment counsel to help determine if a religious accommodation would be appropriate. 

© 2014 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

David L. Woodard, Employment Litigation Attorney, Poyner Spruill, Law firm
Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #23