Advertisement

May 25, 2013

Whitehall Healthcare to Pay $35,000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Health Center Refused to Accommodate Jehovah’s Witness’s Scheduling Needs, Federal Agency Charged 

DETROIT – Whitehall Healthcare Center of Ann Arbor, an Ann Arbor, Mich., skilled nursing and long-term care facility, will pay $35,000 to settle a religious discrimination suit filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. 

In its lawsuit filed in late 2011, the EEOC alleged that Whitehall discriminated again a woman, employed as a certified nursing assistant, because of her request for a religious accommodation.  The employee is a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, and she requested Whitehall not to schedule her to work on Wednesdays or Sundays so she could attend spiritual meetings and participate in field service as a part of her sincerely held religious belief.  Whitehall’s administrator fired her when she informed Whitehall that she would not be able to work on Sunday due to her religious obligations, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Whitehall Healthcare of Ann Arbor, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-15407) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. 

The approval of a consent decree by Judge Avern Cohn brings a formal end to the litigation between the EEOC and Whitehall.  In addition to paying $35,000 to the discrimination victim, the resolution requires the company to provide training to all employees regarding requests for religious accommodations, create a new religious accommodation policy and file reports with the EEOC regarding compliance with the decree’s requirements. 

EEOC Trial Attorney Lauren Gibbs, Supervisory Trial Attorney Kenneth Bird, and Regional Attorney Laurie Young led the government’s litigation. 

“Federal law is clear that employers must make a reasonable effort to achieve an accommodation to solve a situation like this,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Laurie Young.  “Doing so is the best way to avoid lawsuits like this.”  

The EEOC’s Detroit Field Office is responsible for processing charges, administrative enforcement, and conducting the agency litigation in Michigan and portions of Northwest Ohio.

© 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.