Taco Bell Operator Pays $27,000 to Resolve EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

[rug]

Family Foods, Inc., a North Carolina corporation that operates a chain of Taco Bell restaurants in eastern North Carolina, will pay $27,000 and furnish other relief to resolve a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced Friday.

According to the lawsuit, Christopher Abbey is a practicing Nazirite who, in accordance with his religious beliefs, has not cut his hair since he was 15 years old. Abbey worked at a Taco Bell restaurant owned by Family Foods in Fayetteville, N.C., since 2004. Sometime in April 2010, the company informed Abbey that he would have to cut his hair in order to comply with its grooming policy. When Abbey explained that he could not cut his hair because of his religion, the company told Abbey that unless he cut his hair, he could no longer continue to work at its Taco Bell restaurant.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to attempt to make reasonable accommodations to the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees as long as this poses no undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit in July 2011 in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary damages, the two-year consent decree resolving the suit requires Family Foods, Inc. to adopt a formal religious accommodation policy and conduct annual training on Title VII and its prohibition against religious discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Family Foods, Inc. will also post a copy of its anti-discrimination policy at all of its facilities.

http://thejobmouse.com/2012/04/30/taco-bell-operator-pays-27000-to-resolve-eeoc-religious-discrimination-lawsuit/

[HockeyMom]

1. Do they tell female employees to cut their hair too?

All he would have to do is pull it back into a pony tail to meet hygienic methods of handling food. This is exactly what women do.

[edhopper]

2. While I think he is a religious loon

I agree with the EEOC. If accommodation does not impose any hardship on the company, they shouldn't be able to dictate his behavior. This should also be addressed with all those "Christian" companies that discriminate on the basis of whether their employees are good Christian or not. That the Right wants to push the agenda that people CAN discriminate based on religion, is an abomination.

[Swede Atlanta]

3. I am all for religious freedom but.........

there may be circumstances when, as a matter of objective public health, certain employees and their physical attributes are inconsistent with the public interest. In those cases, those individuals must be deemed personae non grata.

Every attempt should be made to accommodate religious expression and observance but there will be some limitations.

From the story it is difficult to determine if the hair exceeded the statutory or regulatory allowance. If it did then unfortunately this young man needs to find a new job. If not and it was just a preference by the employer then they must be held accountable.