2004
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2212-4810
  • E-ISSN: 2212-6465

Abstract

This article examines how the Supreme Court’s decision in represents a shift in the Court’s analysis in religious accommodation cases under §701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of this decision lower courts are now likely to provide greater protection to employees requesting accommodation under §701(j) for two reasons. First, held that an employer can be liable for religious discrimination even if it does not have “actual knowledge” of an applicant’s or employee’s need for religious accommodation. Additionally, the Court also determined that religious accommodation claims can be raised as disparate treatment claims, and in doing so emphasized for the first time that §701(j) mandates more than formal equality. This is an important shift since previous federal decisions often relied on formal equality in limiting an employer’s accommodation obligation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00501002
2017-11-17
2025-12-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/22126465/5/1/22124810_005_01_S002_text.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00501002&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1.  135 S.Ct. 2028, 2032 (2015). Justice Alito wrote a separate opinion, concurring in the judgment but holding that there is a knowledge requirement and that in this case there was “ample evidence” that “Abercrombie knew Elauf was a Muslim and that she wore the scarf for a religious reason.” Ibid. at 2034 (Alito, J., concurring).
  2.  118 Cong. Rec. 706 (1972). Senator Randolph, who sponsored the legislation, stated that in most cases accommodation would be required.
  3.  See generally, Engel, supra note 14.
  4.  135 S.Ct. 2028 (2015).
  5.  135 S.Ct. 2028, 2032 (2015).
  6.  731 F.3d at1111.
  7.  731 F.3d at1116.
  8.  135 S.Ct. 2028, 2032 (2015). Justice Alito wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment but arguing that there is a knowledge requirement and that in this case there was “ample evidence” that “Abercrombie knew Elauf is a Muslim and that she wore the scarf for a religious reason.” Ibid. at 2034 (Alito, J., concurring).
  9.  135 S.Ct.2028, 2033.
  10.  135 S.Ct. 2028, 2034 (2015).
  11.  135 S.Ct. 2028, 2032 (2015).
/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00501002
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): employment law; religion; religious accommodation; Title vii
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error