N.C. Dunkin' Donuts bakery sued for religious discrimination

[rug]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Charlotte office has filed federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Citi Brands LLC

Dale Neal, (Asheville, N.C.) Citizen-Times 11:13 a.m. EDT September 12, 2014

ASHEVILLE, N.C – A Dunkin' Donuts franchise here will go to federal court to answer charges that it refused to hire an Asheville man who could not work on Saturday because of his religious beliefs.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Charlotte office filed a federal lawsuit Thursday in Asheville's U.S. District Court against Citi Brands LCC, charging religious discrimination.

Darrell Littrell, a Seventh-Day Adventist, applied for a job as a donut maker at the Citi Brands' Arden manufacturing plant in December 2012, the suit alleges. He was later interviewed by the company's plant manager.

In January, 2013 the manager offered Littrell the donut maker position, and told Littrell to report to work the next day, a Friday, at 3 p.m., the suit said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/12/dunkin-donut-bakery-sued-religious-discrimination/15506127/

[littlemissmartypants]

1. Kicking. Thank you. nt

[msongs]

2. he chose to apply for a job at a place that is open on Saturdays and now he is whining nt

[rug]

3. They're open seven days. When he told them he can't work on the Sabbath they rescinded the offer.

What do you call that?

It's not like he was whining about the word God on the money they were going to pay him..

[Goblinmonger]

5. I doubt they were going to pay him in cash.

It would likely be deposited electronically. And he would poetically spend most of it electronically. But, that, of course, doesn't afford you the opportunity to be all smug about atheists.

[rug]

6. You haven't worked in a Dunkin' Donuts, have you?

That, of course, doesn't afford you the opportunity to be all smug about minimum wage workers.

If you're looking for smug, go to #2.

Oh, they don't have pensions and summers off either.

[okasha]

9. Unless the job announcement

included "must work nights and weekends," or he was told so during the interview, I'd say he has a decent case.

[rug]

10. Not only that, but the employer's adverse decision immediately followed his knowledge

of his employee's religious practice. Not even an attempt at a reasonable accommodation.

[okasha]

11. A better than decent case, then.

[LiberalAndProud]

12. What if his reasons for being unavailable on Saturday weren't religious.

What if he needed to be available for his children on that day? People hit that employment wall all the time, but I haven't seen any lawsuits over it. I don't think he should get special consideration because his reasons are religious.

[okasha]

13. Religious affiliation is a protected class

under the equal-employment statutes. Parenthood isn't.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. It seems that if a business concern needs an employee to work on Saturdays,

they should be free to hire an employee who is able to work on Saturdays. Have similar lawsuits been successful?

[okasha]

15. If they want an employee to work irregular hours,

(anything other than 8-5 M-F) that information needs to be in the job announcement. That's obviously to the benefit of the employer as well as prospective employees, since the former won't waste their time interviewing applicants who can't take the job, and the latter won't waste their time filling out applications and interviewing for jobs they can't accept.

Rug will know the case law better than I do. But I'd say that since denial of employment was immediately contingent on the applicant's religion, he has a good chance of success.

[rug]

16. The law is pretty settled on this.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

[LiberalAndProud]

17. I was wondering more about case law.

I did a *very* brief google survey, and the successful lawsuits / settlements were centered on questions of dress code vs. religious attire. I didn't find one regarding hours.

I'm no legal beagle, but it seems to me that if I say to you, "You're hired. Be at work tomorrow," and you tell me, "Oh goodness, I can't work on that day of the week. ever," it would be hard to make a case for discrimination. I would certainly get the same treatment if I said, "So sorry, I can't work Friday because that's my hair appointment day." Do equal rights mean special rights when it's a religious question?

[rug]

18. I think this case will turn on the fact that the job was offered, then rescinded.

Here are a couple of cases on that.

Brown v. Polk County, 61 F.3d 650, 654-55(8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1042 (1996).

Chalmers v. Tulon Co., 101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1996).

Without attempting to accommodate the Sabbath requirement, the employer runs afoul of Title VII.

[LiberalAndProud]

19. Keep us posted, rug.

It's an interesting case. I'm thinking the franchisee, having turned down a settlement offer, believes they have a good chance of prevailing. I hope they have competent legal counsel.

[rug]

20. I"ll keep my eyes open.

But not on Sunday.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. Well damn then. You're fired.

[rug]

22. !

[LiberalAndProud]

23. Oh hell. I'll take the Sunday shift.

seeing as how the EEOC probably takes Sunday off, it won't be too taxing.

You're rehired.

[rug]

24. Damn, now I have to rip up the summons . . . . er, I mean, thank you.

[LiberalAndProud]

25. Or this.

an employer is required to accommodate an employee's adherence to the principles of his religion unless such accommodation will actually interfere with the operations of the employer.

http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/working-on-the-sabbath-sunday

[font size="1"]The ACLJ is committed to defending the rights of believers in the workplace, including observing the Sabbath. The religious freedom of public sector and most private sector employees is protected by federal law under Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on religion. [/font]

[rug]

27. It's hard to see how shifting a shift will interfere with the operations of the employer.

[cleanhippie]

4. I like to see how this person spends their Saturdays before rendering judgement.

We may see this differently knowing that.

[rug]

7. Do you know what SDAs do on Saturday?

http://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/sabbath-observance/

It's a cornerstone of their religious practice.

If you're implying (although without evidence that would be a foolish implication) he's a hypocrite or nonobservant, it's irrelevant to the lawsuit.

[cleanhippie]

8. I'm not implying anything. I'd like to see just how "devout" this person really is.

The most devout can be the most hypocritical.

I'm willing to admit being 100% wrong, but there's a fair chance I'm not. We will probably never know.

[merrily]

26. I hope the "person," Dunkin' Donuts, is not held to have a religious freedom right to

discriminate against people of religions other than that of the franchisee.

Didn't Hobby Lobby bring us dangerously close to that?