Balancing Title VII rights: Religious worker fired for refusing to use trans co-worker’s pronouns

In recent months, companies have faced an increasing number of lawsuits that stemmed from opposing political views, from face masks and company dress codes to “woke” training and anti-bias initiatives.

In this case, the company juggled Title VII rights involving religious views and gender identities. Here’s what happened:

Religious beliefs clash with preferred pronouns

In 2019, Denise Haskins was hired at a blood bank. Her job duties required her to “routinely interact” with RS, another employee Haskins had known for years.

In early February 2021, RS told co-workers that he identifies as male and announced that he prefers to be referred to by masculine pronouns.

Haskins, who identifies as a “believing Christian,” says she “sincerely believes that she cannot live a lie and remain within the truth.” She further asserts her belief that “living a lie and being forced to repeat that lie out loud with her own lips is a significant violation of her right to practice her religion.”

Based on this assertion, the court surmised that Haskins “did not want to use male pronouns when referring to RS.”

On Feb. 13, 2021, Haskins was notified that RS filed a complaint against her.

During a “back-and-forth conversation” with a supervisor, Haskins claims she was told RS “had the right not to be bullied or harassed.” Haskins says she then asked for a religious accommodation, saying she “could not have her speech compelled to tell a lie because she was a believing Christian who will not live a lie.”

According to Haskins, the supervisor denied the accommodation request “without any consideration” and asked Haskins to write a letter of resignation. When she refused, she was fired.

Haskins filed a lawsuit, alleging her former employer discriminated against her on the basis of her religion in violation of Title VII and state law.

The employer filed a motion to dismiss.

Title VII rights: 3 elements of religious discrimination claims

To state a valid Title VII claim of religious discrimination, Haskins had to show that she:

1. “holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement”
2. “informed the employer about the conflicts,” and
3. “was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.”

Here, Haskins met the requirement, the court found. She asserted her religious beliefs contradicted her employer’s requirement that she use a co-worker’s preferred gender pronouns. She further alleged that she informed the employer of the conflict and that her employer terminated her without offering any accommodation. That was enough to allow the claim to proceed, the court held.

Would granting request create undue hardship?

The company argued that it couldn’t accommodate Haskin’s religious beliefs without suffering undue hardship. Specifically, it said allowing Haskins to continue working “while refusing to refer to [RS] by [his] preferred pronouns” would expose the company to Title VII liability.

To support its position, the company pointed to EEOC guidance, issued in June 2021, that concluded “intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.”

First things first: In the footnotes of the decision, the court noted that a Texas federal court “has held that the EEOC’s guidance is unlawful,” and three months later, a Tennessee federal court “enjoined its implementation against certain plaintiffs.”

In the current case, it isn’t clear “whether and to what extent [Haskins] used, or intended to use, any pronouns when referring to RS,” the court explained.

For example, the parties did not provide any info to the court about the details of RS’s complaint about Haskins. Moreover, the court said that “individuals working directly with one another generally use names rather than pronouns.” At this early stage with limited information, the court said it could not “assess the nature” of the alleged hardship.

Haskins’ complaint outlines possible accommodations, including a transfer to another work location. But the company argued that wasn’t reasonable because the nearest location Haskins could transfer to was 90 miles away.

When it comes to employers’ attempts to accommodate employees, the court said that’s generally a question for juries. Specifically, juries must look at the facts “on a case-by-case basis” to determine whether employers made reasonable efforts to accommodate workers, the court explained.

The complaint “alone does not demonstrate the [employer] could not reasonably accommodate” Haskins’ religious beliefs without causing undue hardship, the court said. As such, it denied the company’s motion to dismiss.

The interactive process: A critical note

The court made another observation that had no impact on its current ruling.

Haskins also asserted the company failed to comply with a separate “legal obligation” to engage in the interactive process. Specifically, she asserted it should’ve held a “sit down meeting” to explore reasonable accommodations.

She referenced multiple cases, but the court said the case law “did not support such a requirement.” None of the cases relied on by Haskins refer to a “sit down meeting” or an interactive process like the one required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the court held.

Note to HR: Upcoming SCOTUS ruling may expand employers’ obligations

This case provides a reminder that employment law issues don’t have a one-size-fits-all solution. Here, the court referred to the differences in requirements for the interactive process for reasonable religious accommodations under Title VII and the interactive process for reasonable disability accommodations under the ADA.

However, as we told you earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to expand employers’ religious accommodation duties.

The case, Groff v. DeJoy, will consider whether:

1. the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, and
2. employers may demonstrate “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee’s co-workers rather than the business itself.

The Groff case is scheduled for arguments on April 18, and a decision is likely to be issued by the end of June. Stay tuned.

Haskins v. Bio Blood Components, No. 1:22-cv-586, 2023 WL 2071483 (W.D. Mich. 2/17/23).