P.F. Chang's agreed to participate in conciliation, and as a result, agreed to pay $80,000 and implement workplace changes to settle a charge filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The EEOC alleged the employer discriminated on the basis of religion against an applicant for a server position at one of its restaurants.
The EEOC alleged that a server asked for Sundays off so he could practice his faith. The employer refused to hire him.
A failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for a sincerely-held religious belief or practice violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
As part of the settlement, P.F. Chang's will also take steps to prevent future discrimination, including revising its policies, training staff on religious accommodation obligations, and reporting periodically to the EEOC.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/pf-changs-pay-80000-religious-discrimination
Commentary
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of religion. Employers must provide reasonable accommodation for sincerely-held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship, meaning substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer's particular business, as clarified in Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. ___ (2023). The Court did not supply a rigid definition of "substantial" and instead emphasized a fact-specific, case-by-case assessment tied to the realities of the particular business.
When an applicant requests a work schedule that accommodates religious observances, the employer should engage in a good?faith interactive discussion to explore workable alternatives. The employer may decline a requested accommodation only where it would significantly interfere with an essential operation of the business or otherwise create substantial increased costs or serious operational burdens under the Groff standard.
For example, if a restaurant seeks to hire a server who can generally be scheduled on any day of the week, permitting an otherwise qualified applicant to be unavailable on Sundays for religious reasons will, in many circumstances, constitute a reasonable accommodation. By contrast, if the restaurant is recruiting specifically for a Sunday?only position, Title VII does not require the employer to hire an applicant who cannot work on Sundays for religious reasons, because doing so would prevent the employer from filling that essential Sunday role.
The last takeaway is to avoid challenging an applicant or employee about the validity of their religious beliefs or practices and instead focus on the nature of the conflict with workplace requirements. Employers should conduct and document an interactive process aimed at identifying a reasonable accommodation, and only if no solution exists that avoids substantial increased costs or significant disruption to essential operations may the employer lawfully decline the requested accommodation.
