Religious Discrimination Claim

Genesis is a healthcare facility located in Baltimore. Liebermann began working as a social worker at Genesis short-stay unit in August 2010. Liebermann notified Genesis at the time of hire that she was an Orthodox Jew and would need to leave early on Fridays in order to observe the Sabbath. According to Liebermann, she also told Genesis that she would need to pick up her child from day care on Fridays. Genesis approved Liebermann's request to leave early on Fridays under the condition that she make the time up and work 40 hours each week. Liebermann began working on a full-time basis on Aug. 23, 2010.

According to Genesis, concerns about Liebermann's Friday schedules surfaced shortly after the start of her employment. Over the course of the first seven Fridays of Liebermann's employment, she left Genesis on two occasions at approximately 4:30 p.m.; on two other occasions, at approximately 3:30 p.m.; and took vacation days for the other three Fridays. Around Oct. 11, 2010, Liebermann told her supervisor that she would need to leave earlier because her child's day care center was going to start closing at 3:30 p.m. on Fridays.

Then, on Oct. 29, 2010, Liebermann sent another e-mail to her supervisor stating that she needed to leave 2:00 p.m. on that day, as the day care was scheduled to close even earlier in relation to the start of the Sabbath.

Concerned about Liebermann's attendance, Genesis requested that she clarify why she needed to leave work so early on Fridays. Liebermann responded that she needed to leave work at 2:30 p.m. and then, with the time change, by 1:30 p.m. on Fridays. Liebermann explained that she was trying to find a babysitter who could pick up her child, but had not been successful.

On Nov. 5, 2010, Genesis issued Liebermann a written warning regarding her performance and attendance. Thereafter, on Nov. 18, 2010, Liebermann was terminated.

Liebermann then filed a charge of discrimination with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations (MCHR) on Feb. 3, 2011. In her charge, she claimed religious discrimination. The EEOC issued a dismissal and notice of rights on June 28, 2011, and Liebermann filed a lawsuit on Sept. 26, 2011.

The Lawsuit

In response to Liebermann's complaint, Genesis filed a motion to dismiss all of Liebermann's claims. In her complaint, Liebermann asserted that not only was she the victim of improper discrimination on account of religion, but was also treated differently on account of her gender and race.

With regard to Liebermann's claims of sex and race discrimination, the trial court had little difficulty dismissing them on the grounds that those two separate and discrete claims were never identified in her charge of discrimination filed with the MCHR.

As noted by the court, an individual's right to bring suit under Title VII is limited by the charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC and/or state agency. Only those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge, those reasonably related to the original complaint and those developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint, may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit.

In this case, Liebermann only identified religion as the basis of discrimination in her earlier MCHR charge, but sued for discrimination based on race, sex and religion. However, because the claims of race and sex were never identified in the initial charge of discrimination, and could not reasonably be expected to be considered in an investigation of Liebermann's claim of discrimination on account of religion, the court held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over those claims and dismissed them.

In considering Liebermann's claim that she was the victim of improper discrimination on account of her religious beliefs, the court did not agree. According to the court, in order for Liebermann to make out a prima facie case of religious discrimination, she must establish that she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement, that she informed her employer of this belief, and that she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.

While Liebermann had initially requested time off on Fridays based on her religious beliefs, in a series of e-mails between her and her supervisors, she identified that child care was the reason she needed to leave early on Fridays. According to those e-mails, Liebermann explained that she needed to leave earlier than previously scheduled because the day care closed progressively earlier in relation to the start of the Sabbath.

While the court did not doubt the sincerity of Liebermann's religious beliefs, Liebermann failed to demonstrate that her religious belief or observance conflicted with her employment. Rather, according to the court, the evidence demonstrated that Liebermann's child care needs, and not her religious beliefs, were the source of the employment issues. The court found no evidence that Genesis refused to let Liebermann leave work prior to sundown or fired her for doing so.

The Court's Reasoning

In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on an earlier decision from the Maryland District Court, Dachman v. Shalala, 46 F.Supp.2d 419 (D.Md. 1999), in which an employee complained that her employer's refusal to let her leave more than two hours before sundown constituted religious discrimination. According to the employee, she would need the extra time to purchase challah bread (a special ceremonial bread eaten on the Sabbath and other holidays) for her family. The employer refused that request.

In Dachman, the court found that the employer's policy did not conflict with the employee's observance of the Sabbath because getting challah bread at a specific time from a specific store was not part of her religious observance.

Other courts have concluded that any request for an accommodation incidental to a religious observance, practice or belief, and not otherwise required by the employee's religion, is more properly considered a personal preference that need not be accommodated.

The court further noted that Liebermann had not claimed that picking up her daughter from day care was a religious mandate. Indeed, Liebermann stated that she was looking for a babysitter to pick up her daughter and that her need to leave work early in the meantime was related to her inability to do so. (Grace Liebermann v. Genesis Healthcare-Franklin Wood Center, MDDC Civil No. CCB-11-2770, decided June 20, 2012.

Bottom Line

While it is true that employers are under an obligation to make reasonable accommodations related to an employee's religious beliefs, the accommodations must be related to those religious beliefs and not for other personal preferences. Here, Liebermann requested and was granted time off on Fridays to be able to celebrate the Sabbath at her home. However, when she sought to extend that time off on Friday due to child care obligations, her employer refused to accommodate those requests resulting in her termination.

As a result, whenever an employee requests an accommodation based on religious reasons, the employer should carefully consider the request and make sure that it is sufficiently related to that religion and not a mere personal preference of the employee.

This case also serves as a helpful reminder for all employers to make sure that the claims in the lawsuit were initially raised in the underlying charge of discrimination or would probably have been discovered during the EEOC investigation. As the court found in this case, simply because the employee may have one valid claim of discrimination, that does not necessarily mean that the employee can then add additional claims that were never identified or presented to the EEOC and/or the corresponding state FEP agency for investigation.

Kevin McCormick, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a Partner in the Baltimore office of Whiteford Taylor Preston, LLP.

In a recent decision, the Maryland District Court considered, and rejected, a claim of religious discrimination filed by Grace Liebermann, a former social worker at Genesis Healthcare-Franklin Wood Center (Genesis).

Liebermann claimed that her dismissal was in reaction to her request to leave early on Fridays in order for her to observe the Sabbath. As the court found, however, because Liebermann's request to leave early on Fridays was not solely related to her religious practices, her claims were rejected.

Background Facts

Genesis is a healthcare facility located in Baltimore. Liebermann began working as a social worker at Genesis short-stay unit in August 2010. Liebermann notified Genesis at the time of hire that she was an Orthodox Jew and would need to leave early on Fridays in order to observe the Sabbath. According to Liebermann, she also told Genesis that she would need to pick up her child from day care on Fridays. Genesis approved Liebermann's request to leave early on Fridays under the condition that she make the time up and work 40 hours each week. Liebermann began working on a full-time basis on Aug. 23, 2010.

According to Genesis, concerns about Liebermann's Friday schedules surfaced shortly after the start of her employment. Over the course of the first seven Fridays of Liebermann's employment, she left Genesis on two occasions at approximately 4:30 p.m.; on two other occasions, at approximately 3:30 p.m.; and took vacation days for the other three Fridays. Around Oct. 11, 2010, Liebermann told her supervisor that she would need to leave earlier because her child's day care center was going to start closing at 3:30 p.m. on Fridays.

Then, on Oct. 29, 2010, Liebermann sent another e-mail to her supervisor stating that she needed to leave 2:00 p.m. on that day, as the day care was scheduled to close even earlier in relation to the start of the Sabbath.

Concerned about Liebermann's attendance, Genesis requested that she clarify why she needed to leave work so early on Fridays. Liebermann responded that she needed to leave work at 2:30 p.m. and then, with the time change, by 1:30 p.m. on Fridays. Liebermann explained that she was trying to find a babysitter who could pick up her child, but had not been successful.

On Nov. 5, 2010, Genesis issued Liebermann a written warning regarding her performance and attendance. Thereafter, on Nov. 18, 2010, Liebermann was terminated.

Liebermann then filed a charge of discrimination with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations (MCHR) on Feb. 3, 2011. In her charge, she claimed religious discrimination. The EEOC issued a dismissal and notice of rights on June 28, 2011, and Liebermann filed a lawsuit on Sept. 26, 2011.

The Lawsuit

In response to Liebermann's complaint, Genesis filed a motion to dismiss all of Liebermann's claims. In her complaint, Liebermann asserted that not only was she the victim of improper discrimination on account of religion, but was also treated differently on account of her gender and race.

With regard to Liebermann's claims of sex and race discrimination, the trial court had little difficulty dismissing them on the grounds that those two separate and discrete claims were never identified in her charge of discrimination filed with the MCHR.

As noted by the court, an individual's right to bring suit under Title VII is limited by the charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC and/or state agency. Only those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge, those reasonably related to the original complaint and those developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint, may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit.

In this case, Liebermann only identified religion as the basis of discrimination in her earlier MCHR charge, but sued for discrimination based on race, sex and religion. However, because the claims of race and sex were never identified in the initial charge of discrimination, and could not reasonably be expected to be considered in an investigation of Liebermann's claim of discrimination on account of religion, the court held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over those claims and dismissed them.

In considering Liebermann's claim that she was the victim of improper discrimination on account of her religious beliefs, the court did not agree. According to the court, in order for Liebermann to make out a prima facie case of religious discrimination, she must establish that she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement, that she informed her employer of this belief, and that she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.

While Liebermann had initially requested time off on Fridays based on her religious beliefs, in a series of e-mails between her and her supervisors, she identified that child care was the reason she needed to leave early on Fridays. According to those e-mails, Liebermann explained that she needed to leave earlier than previously scheduled because the day care closed progressively earlier in relation to the start of the Sabbath.

While the court did not doubt the sincerity of Liebermann's religious beliefs, Liebermann failed to demonstrate that her religious belief or observance conflicted with her employment. Rather, according to the court, the evidence demonstrated that Liebermann's child care needs, and not her religious beliefs, were the source of the employment issues. The court found no evidence that Genesis refused to let Liebermann leave work prior to sundown or fired her for doing so.

The Court's Reasoning

In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on an earlier decision from the Maryland District Court, Dachman v. Shalala , 46 F.Supp.2d 419 (D.Md. 1999), in which an employee complained that her employer's refusal to let her leave more than two hours before sundown constituted religious discrimination. According to the employee, she would need the extra time to purchase challah bread (a special ceremonial bread eaten on the Sabbath and other holidays) for her family. The employer refused that request.

In Dachman, the court found that the employer's policy did not conflict with the employee's observance of the Sabbath because getting challah bread at a specific time from a specific store was not part of her religious observance.

Other courts have concluded that any request for an accommodation incidental to a religious observance, practice or belief, and not otherwise required by the employee's religion, is more properly considered a personal preference that need not be accommodated.

The court further noted that Liebermann had not claimed that picking up her daughter from day care was a religious mandate. Indeed, Liebermann stated that she was looking for a babysitter to pick up her daughter and that her need to leave work early in the meantime was related to her inability to do so. (Grace Liebermann v. Genesis Healthcare-Franklin Wood Center, MDDC Civil No. CCB-11-2770, decided June 20, 2012.

Bottom Line

While it is true that employers are under an obligation to make reasonable accommodations related to an employee's religious beliefs, the accommodations must be related to those religious beliefs and not for other personal preferences. Here, Liebermann requested and was granted time off on Fridays to be able to celebrate the Sabbath at her home. However, when she sought to extend that time off on Friday due to child care obligations, her employer refused to accommodate those requests resulting in her termination.

As a result, whenever an employee requests an accommodation based on religious reasons, the employer should carefully consider the request and make sure that it is sufficiently related to that religion and not a mere personal preference of the employee.

This case also serves as a helpful reminder for all employers to make sure that the claims in the lawsuit were initially raised in the underlying charge of discrimination or would probably have been discovered during the EEOC investigation. As the court found in this case, simply because the employee may have one valid claim of discrimination, that does not necessarily mean that the employee can then add additional claims that were never identified or presented to the EEOC and/or the corresponding state FEP agency for investigation.

Kevin McCormick, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a Partner in the Baltimore office of Whiteford Taylor Preston, LLP.