Arkansas Court Allows Religious Discrimination Case

2022-07-30 03:04:06 By : Mr. David Chang

Accommodating an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs can be tricky. In EEOC v. Kroger, a court in Arkansas gives some guidance on how to handle these claims.

The case law surrounding religious failure-to-accommodate claims is pretty well-settled.  First, the employee must show that a workplace rule conflicts with his or her sincerely held religious belief. Second, the employee must inform the employer of the conflict. Third, the employee has to be disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting workplace rule. But what if there is a conflict about what the workplace rule really means and whether it is connected to any sort of religious belief? The court in Arkansas has now said that such an issue may be up to a jury.

In 2018, Kroger launched a company initiative entitled “Our Promise.” The campaign had four prongs: 

So far, so good. These four ideals were represented by four concentric hearts of different colors. In mid-2018, Kroger announced a new uniform policy: store employees would wear a blue apron with the Kroger logo and the Our Promise heart symbol. Kroger sent out a video and card to all employees explaining the apron and what each color of the heart meant.

By April 2019, supervisors at the Kroger in Conway, Arkansas, began distributing the new aprons that included the Our Promise heart. Several employees complained about the multicolored heart symbol because they believed that it supported or promoted the LGBTQ community. Some employees covered up the heart with their nametag. Some refused to wear the apron at all. At least one employee colored in the heart with a red marker. Kroger told employees they could not alter the apron and they could not refuse to wear it.

Two employees told their supervisors that they would not wear the apron with the heart symbol because their religion prohibited them from “advertising that Kroger supported LGBTQ.” Kroger disciplined both employees for failing to comply with the dress code. After these disciplinary actions, both employees wrote to their supervisor seeking a religious accommodation — they wanted to wear aprons that did not include the heart symbol. The supervisor told the employees that the heart symbol was part of the Our Promise initiative and had nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. Kroger determined that there was “nothing to accommodate,” because the symbol had no connection with the LGBTQ community. The employees continued to refuse to wear the aprons with the heart and were eventually terminated for violating company policy. 

The employees filed EEOC charges, and the EEOC issued a determination that Kroger had violated Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination. The EEOC filed suit on behalf of both former Kroger employees for both discrimination and retaliation.

Kroger moved for summary judgment on both the discrimination and retaliation claims. While it did not dispute that the two employees believed that homosexuality is a sin and that they could not support or promote it, Kroger pointed out that Kroger’s dress code (and the Our Promise heart symbol) did not violate that belief. Kroger argued that it was objectively unreasonable to believe that the multicolored heart symbol supports and promotes the LGBTQ community. They pointed to the evidence of what the heart actually stood for — which had nothing to do with the LGBTQ community. Therefore, according to Kroger, the dress could not be a conflict with the employees’ religion. 

The court disagreed. Recent United States Supreme Court precedent holds that a court could not decide that there was no conflict where the plaintiff sincerely believed there was. The Court stated that regardless of what Kroger intended for the heart symbol to mean, at this stage of the proceeding the fact that the employees objected to being seen as supporting homosexuality was the important inquiry. A jury would have to determine whether it was objectively reasonable for customers to think that the multicolored heart was an LGBTQ symbol. 

Kroger also argued that allowing the employees to be excepted from the dress code would cause it undue hardship and therefore the case should be dismissed. The Court also felt that this question was one for the jury. 

The court granted summary judgment to Kroger on the employees’ claims of retaliation. The court held that when an employer denies an employee’s claim for religious accommodation and then terminates the employee because he or she did not comply with the conflicting policy, that employee can bring a failure-to-accommodate claim, but not a retaliation claim, simply for failing to comply.

To be clear, this opinion is based on specific facts and is from one federal judge. The decision does not preclude Kroger from arguing at trial that the employees misunderstood the meaning of the symbol. However, this case does show some of the difficulty that surrounds religious accommodation issues. Courts tend to give employees the benefit of the doubt on the sincerity of their religious belief. This opinion also shows that the undue hardship defense may be difficult to win. Overall, this opinion shows that good dialogue with employees on workplace practices early on may nip future claims in the bud.

Will Manuel focuses his practice primarily on commercial and employment litigation. He has handled various disputes for both large and small businesses in both Mississippi and other jurisdictions.

Will's clients include numerous manufacturers and commercial interests as well as various insurance and financial services companies. He has worked to defend these clients in both MDL litigation and individual actions brought in Mississippi. Will also has experience in advising businesses on issues involving age discrimination, sexual harassment and...

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 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.