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.
11 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.
Post a Comment