Apple, Inc. settled a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $150,000.
The settlement requires Apple to pay $80,000 in back pay and $70,000 in compensatory damages to the employee as well as to update religious observance policies to include a requirement that all religious accommodation denials be written and include an explanation of the denial.
The EEOC alleged Apple failed to accommodate an employee's scheduling request required for his religious observances and subsequently fired him in retaliation for complaining about religious discrimination.
The employee had worked at an Apple Store in Virginia for 16 years, consistently receiving positive performance reviews.
In August 2023, the employee allegedly requested an accommodation to his schedule so that he could observe the Sabbath by not working on Fridays and Saturdays per his Jewish faith.
A new store manager allegedly rejected this request, citing Apple's new scheduling policy that prohibited someone from having both Fridays and Saturdays off. The employee allegedly feared he would lose his job so he worked on the Sabbath, which violated his religious beliefs.
Apple also allegedly began disciplining the employee for grooming policy violations shortly after he made his religious accommodation request. The same manager who denied the accommodation request also allegedly made disparaging religious comments.
Shortly after the employee reminded his supervisor about an upcoming day he was taking off for religious reasons, he was fired. The alleged reason given for his termination was another grooming policy violation.
The EEOC alleged this termination was retaliatory in response to the employee's religious accommodation request and his complaints regarding the manager's alleged discriminatory comments.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/apple-pay-150000-eeoc-religious-discrimination-suit; https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-apple-religious-discrimination-and-retaliation
Commentary
Based on the requirements of the settlement, it can be surmised that the employee's religious accommodation was not met with a properly documented interactive process.
The settlement agreement provides that Apple will update its religious observance policy to require decision-makers to provide a written explanation for denial of a religious accommodation, indicating the employee in the above matter was not given any written explanation when his request was denied.
Verbal denials of religious accommodation requests may be tempting. They may be convenient and a written follow-up may seem "stuffy" or unnecessary. However, conversations alone can also be risky.
A verbal denial, without written follow-up, leaves no contemporaneous record of the reasoning behind the denial and offers no insight into the decision-making process. This means, during litigation or investigation, any offered explanations may appear to be improvised or inconsistent with what the employee claims was said at the time, creating risk.
Any conversations regarding the denial of a religious accommodation request should always be memorialized in a contemporaneous writing, stating the organization's process when evaluating the request, the reason the request is being denied, and the date on which it was sent to the employee.
The final takeaway is that written records regarding accommodations carry the most weight
