18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

54 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition (iv) Fourth Circuit EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151989 (D. Md. Aug. 12, 2021). The EEOC brought an action on behalf of the charging party Aliyah Hadith, a Muslim woman, asserting a claim of failure to provide religious accommodation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant had extended a conditional offer of employment to Hadith, who was a bus driver in training, and informed Hadith that while she was on the job she would not be permitted to wear an untucked shirt or a loose-fitting, floor-length garment, called an abaya. Defendant’s standard training uniform consisted of gray pants, a blue shirt, a red tie, a gray jacket, and a gray cap. Defendant maintained safety requirements that a driver’s uniform not hang on the ground or have any loose ends because it could potentially be snagged and lead to an injury. After learning of Defendant’s clothing requirement, Hadith withdrew from the training program. The EEOC maintained that Defendant’s stance regarding Hadith’s attire was unlawful in that it failed to provide Hadith with a reasonable accommodation for her bona fide religious belief and, consequently, subjected Hadith to a constructive discharge. After discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the EEOC had not demonstrated that Hadith was subjected to an adverse employment action because she failed to comply with the uniform policy or to accept Defendant’s proposed accommodation. The Court ruled that the EEOC had established a prima facie violation of Title VII in that it presented evidence that: (i) Hadith had a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with an employment requirement; (ii) she informed Defendant of this belief; and (iii) she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. In so ruling, the Court rejected Defendant’s position that Hadith was not constructively discharged (because she voluntarily resigned from the training program). It held that the EEOC had presented triable issues with respect to Hadith’s constructive discharge. In addition, the Court found that there was also a genuine issue of fact as to whether: (i) Defendant’s proposed accommodation was reasonable; and (ii) Hadith’s preferred accommodation constituted an undue burden on Defendant’s business operations. The Court rejected Defendant’s argument that the accommodation offered to Hadith was reasonable because another Muslim woman had previously accepted Defendant’s similar offer of allowing her to wear a skirt that fell no more than five inches below the knee over the pants of the driver’s uniform. The Court was unpersuaded and pointed out that the other Muslim driver and Hadith were not interchangeable for purposes of Title VII because two members of the same religion may have varying religious practices and forms of religious observation. Likewise, the Court rejected Defendant’s argument that Hadith’s preferred accommodation would have created an undue burden for Defendant. The Court reasoned that the Defendant had not offered any evidence whatsoever regarding the safety risk posed by Hadith’s religious attire. Further, Defendant failed to identify any undue burden that would have resulted from Hadith wearing an untucked shirt, which was also part of her requested accommodation. Based on the record before it, the Court ruled that it could not conclude, as a matter of fact or law, that Hadith’s requested accommodation would have resulted in a safety risk or an undue burden on Defendant. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. EEOC v. Lindsay Ford LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212371 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 2021). The EEOC filed an action on behalf of the charging party, Janak Maloney, a former car salesperson, alleging that he subjected to a hostile work environment that resulted in his constructive discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court granted the EEOC’s motion and denied Defendant’s motion. Maloney was of South Asian descent. He reported to intermediate sales managers who in turn reported to Jerry Clark, the General Manager of Lindsay Ford. Clark allegedly subjected Maloney to repeated insults about his appearance and called him derogatory names, and made harassing comments which were sexual in nature. Due to the ongoing harassment, Maloney requested to be transferred to another dealership location. Maloney was informed of two options, both of which were rejected as undesirable, including: (i) that he could move to the service department, but would still report to Clark; or (ii) that he could transfer to a dealership 38 miles away. Thereafter, Maloney alleged that Clark grabbed his right buttock, after which he could not return to work because of feeling so sick and nauseous. Maloney reported the incidents to Defendants’ human recourses department, and it investigated the alleged discrimination. Defendants determined that the discriminatory conduct was corroborated by other employees, and it thereby imposed disciplinary action on Clark and a reduced his salary by $10,000. Defendants argued that based on the evidence, the EEOC could not establish facts sufficient to establish either a hostile work environment claim or a constructive discharge claim. The EEOC contended that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims. The Court determined