EEOC Sues Hatch Trick, Inc. for Religious Discrimination
AUSTIN, Texas — Hatch Trick, Inc., a Chick-fil-A franchisee operating multiple locations in Austin, violated federal law by refusing to reasonably accommodate an employee’s request to refrain from working on Saturdays in observance of her Sabbath day and instead fired her, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the employee, who managed Hatch Trick’s delivery drivers at one of its Austin locations, is a member of the United Church of God denomination, which observes a Saturday Sabbath. In adherence to her religious faith and practice, she requested no scheduled hours on Saturdays, and she disclosed the need during her job interview. Although Hatch Trick initially honored the employee’s request to refrain from Saturday work, after several months the company changed its position and demanded that she work on Saturdays, the EEOC said.
The EEOC’s lawsuit stated that the employee made additional requests for religious accommodation, meeting with company officials on several occasions to discuss her needs and suggested a number of alternatives which would have allowed her to remain in her position while adhering to her Sabbath observance.
Hatch Trick rejected all options for the employee to remain in her managerial job while abstaining from Saturday work, instead telling her that she must move to a non-managerial delivery driver position which entitled her to lower pay, reduced benefits and fewer hours. When the employee declined to accept the driver position, the company discharged her, according to the lawsuit.
“The duty under federal law to provide reasonable accommodation of religion reflects an acknowledgement by our society of the importance of faith in workers’ everyday lives and an abiding respect for those who observe religious practices as an expression of that faith,” said acting EEOC Dallas Regional Attorney Ronald L. Phillips. “Just as adherence to the dictates of one’s own conscience is not optional, so too an employer’s duty under Title VII is obligatory, and the EEOC stands ready to enforce that legal duty.”
The type of conduct charged in the EEOC’s complaint violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination because of religion and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the business. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Hatch Trick, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01275) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
EEOC San Antonio Field Office Director Norma Guzman said, “Religious discrimination in the workplace is unlawful, and employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held beliefs. Title VII protects employees’ rights to observe their religious beliefs, and no employee’s livelihood should come at the expense of their religious convictions.”
For more information on religious discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination.
The EEOC’s Dallas District Office has jurisdiction over a substantial part of Texas and parts of southern New Mexico.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
26 comments:
If this article is accurate, the employee was unwilling to work after sunset on Saturdays, which is her personal preference and not what her church teaches. Also, she was apparently willing to work on Fridays after sunset, again putting her in violation of UCG teachings.
If this employee was so lazy as to make this an issue of "Saturday" vs. "Sunday" it's no surprise that Chik-fil-a corporate held her feet to the fire on this. But is this a case of sloppy Sabbath-keeping, or sloppy reporting?
And the sun sets at different times depending on one's time zone. Hey, can I at least get some credit for sharing the story NO2hwa, I guess it was going to get around sooner or later. LOL
Tank
No doubt sloppy reporting.
EEOC considered it a legitimate case. It does sound pretty cut and dried. This will not look good for Chick-fil-A.
Although most people, including attorneys unfamiliar with religious teachings, may not be familiar with sunset to sunset there does appear to be some sloppiness or error somewhere in this present case. A much larger and more commonly known group, the Seventh Day Adventists, regularly institutes litigation in defense of religious freedom. The Adventists observe sunset to sunset. In circles concerned with preserving religious freedom, this EEOC lawsuit will be seen as positive publicity for UCG. For once, publicity surrounding an ACOG is not due to typical cartoonish activity such as repetitive false prophecy.
Chick fil A has a history of confrontation against those whom they wish not to be considered as mainstream, and for whom they do not honor the protected status which the law mandates. It's hardly surprising that philosophical opposites such as gays and sabbath keepers would both raise their hackles.
Did I miss something in the article? Where does it indicate her willingness to work after sunset in Friday? And with summertime sunsets around 8:45 or later it makes little sense to go in to work when they close up at 10:00.
You're reading a news release from the EEOC. Prepared by its public relations people.
I agree, it will be of positive publicity, people will look into United's materials. Most people don't even know or ever heard of Armstrong or his splinters and this attention could be something. Who knows
A Wikipedia page for UCGaia does exist. I don't see anything on that page which makes it sound like anything other than Messianic Judaism, although Herbert W. Armstrong is mentioned. This means that those who consult the Wikipedia article may indeed need to do a little deeper digging. Hopefully, they'll end up here, and we can straighten them out.
I doubt seriously that UCG will receive any support from the Christian Nationalists who seem to be enjoying their inordinate and disproportionate current level of power.
Looking more into the case, I do see the franchise owner’s case. Having a managerial person not available during a key time (Saturday) being costly to the local store would be their defense.
Follow up to previous comment: I didn’t think about what it said about her being THE manager of deliveries, rather than A manager. I wouldn’t be surprised if they wanted her working six days a week. That way when they get a complaint, the proper manager is always there – save for vacations, of course. I haven’t been in a Chick-fil-A in over a decade. The more I think about it, they really don’t have a large staff from what I saw. My fast food work experience is a McDonald’s from 40 years ago. Places like that – even small ones – which were far more labor intensive and had plenty of managers, even specialized ones. But this store probably wouldn’t.
EEOC did see it as a case to be made. It says that the employee offered alternatives, so she was willing to change. That’s where the EEOC case likely is.
Texas is an at-will employment state, meaning employers and employees can end the employment relationship at any time for any legal reason or no reason at all.
Jesus Christ is the mediator of the new covenant and He is the High Priest of spiritual Israel. He makes intercessions for spiritual Israel His church. Now you can subscribe to the British & American Israel doctrine, but the Holy Spirit opens up God’s relationship to all people who are converted.
That raises questions, 4:22. Has Texas always been this way? The reason I ask this is that we are living in the era of circumventing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and time-honored checks and balances, all perpetrated by the very people who have wrapped themselves in the flag and claim to be preserving and upholding the Constitution! It is both astonishing, and appalling.
I am amazed that we still even have a country at this point. Looks like we will sputter along until the national debt takes us out. The Dems have exacerbated this debt mostly by spending what we don't have, and the Repubs have been killing us with new debt caused by tax cuts that we can't afford, oh, and expensive new wars!
No wonder the A-ites think their stupid prophecies are being fulfilled, even though it's going down in completely different ways than portrayed in Herbie's wet dream. We need to wake up before it's too late.
"The Weekend with Michael Brown" on national radio spent a full half-hour analyzing this case Sunday evening.
It seemed fair and balanced, considering both sides. He explained an EEOC suit is an alarm bell of sorts, trying to get both sides to settle.
Yep, He divorced physical Israel a long time ago. Armstrongism doesn't care though. Great words through 6:52
Thank you. Balanced in legal analysis, if not in tone. He hit directly on my theory for Chick-fil-A‘s defense. And he asked the key question: what changed? Why did the arrangement stop working for the restaurant?
If anyone has information on the alternatives that the member suggested, I would love to hear.
Herbert Armstrong repeatedly wrote about the seperation of God and Israel. He even used the description 'Divorce'.
Not sure how long it has been an at will employment state, but lots of states are. And have been for a while.
Yes. Jeremiah 3. The northern tribes were divorced, but not Judah. His argument and that of Anglo-Israelists is that the divorce does not nullify the promises to Abraham.
However, Jeremiah 3 Is the basis for the claims of some Anglo-Israelism believers from opposite extremes that the northern tribes would not be covered by requirements for things like Sabbath and Levitical food laws. The northern tribes would be counted as Gentiles, and by their view those things are only applicable to Israelites. (That is the core dispute being alluded to in Romans 14, I believe.)But due to the divorce, the northern tribes are counted as Gentiles in this regard. I see this idea put forward among antisemitic believers and Jewish believers. It’s a case where the extremes look more like each other other than the center. They both want to keep the Jews in a special category unto themselves. This line of thinking usually leads to Gentiles being only Noachide Code subject, though some will expand it further
Alternative arguments would be that Torah is more Revelatory than regulatory,, and is completely universal. But this is countered by Deuteronomy14:21. Someone will say “nearly” universal, and include Sabbath and food laws as part of the requirement for Gentiles. Armstrong’s view fell something in the range of these two, thus including Gentiles in the requirements., but then he also believed in some abrogation, contrary to Deut 4:1-2; 12:32ff; 30:1-10.
Up shot: Exodus 31 notwithstanding, believers in that identity theory did not regard the divorce as fatal to it.
What happens when the country is gone, 6:53:00? Which will have predicted the demise...the group here at Banned, or HWA?
All the native American tribes & First Nations also operated under "at will employment". You can bet Hitler & Stalin did too. Didn't the Aztecs & Toltecs also?
Civilized societies & states though, rig up helpful Social Security, along with a few employee protections.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let's make sure this lady at UCG is treated fairly at Chik Fil A or at any job in any US state.
12:09, where are the gays hidden at deep within the report & article?
12:09, I have to ask where Chick-fil-A ever Failed to uphold “civil rights“ obligations regardingthe LGBT… EIEIO people. Several years back when someone associated with the company made some sociopolitical statements that “community” didn’t agree with, it came out that They had homosexuals who owned Chick-fil-A restaurants. Just because somebody says something that a PC Demographic doesn’t like doesn’t mean they’re failing legal obligations. It just means that the PC demographic is trying to force their views on everybody else. They want the right to be different. They have to extend that even to people who hold traditional views. But of course, that doesn’t work for the agenda.
Heh. Kinda like the North and South today if we were Israelites, isn't it? The South is the Bible Belt. Unfortunately for COGlodytes, it's the Protestant Bible Belt. So, it is quite in character that a sabbatarian Christian in Tejas would have to petition for relief if her freedom of religion were violated in a Sunday-keeping state. Not all states were founded upon the tolerant ideals of a William Penn.
Most people don't realize that if power comes after one of us, it's coming after all of us! Thank God for federal judges during these troubled times!
I just love Ray Wylie Hubbard's satirical song "Screw You, We're From Texas!" Well, actually the whole "Growl" album. Fantastic lyrical content, and Gurf Morlix's free form guitar fills are reminiscent of Charlie McCoy's work on Dylan's "Desolation Row"
“His argument and that of Anglo-Israelists is that the divorce does not nullify the promises to Abraham”
What Promises to Abraham? I guess to the ACOGs it’s the promises of the birthright blessing? The NT speaks of this.
Galatians 3:17 What I mean is that God made a covenant with Abraham and promised to keep it. The Law, which was given four hundred and thirty years later, cannot break that covenant and cancel God's promise. (GNT)
Galatians 3:21-22 Does this mean that the Law is against God's promises? No, not at all! For if human beings had received a law that could bring life, then everyone could be put right with God by obeying it. But the scripture says that the whole world is under the power of sin; and so the gift which is promised on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ is given to those who believe. (GNT)
Hebrews 7:6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
Post a Comment