Dive Brief:
- Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. and Marriott Ownership Resorts agreed to pay $175,000 to settle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission allegations they discriminated against an employee by revoking her religious accommodation despite no undue hardship, the agency announced Thursday.
- The former worker was a Seventh-Day Adventist and had asked to avoid Saturday shifts to observe her Sabbath, an accommodation that was initially provided, the agency said. After a change in management, the companies began scheduling her to work Saturdays despite her complaints, “forcing her to choose between her work and her faith,” EEOC said.
- In addition to providing $175,000 to the former worker, the Marriott companies agreed to train managers and HR employees in Title VII and the standard for a qualifying “undue hardship,” post an EEOC notice about the settlement and provide regular reports on their adherence to the consent decree, among other stipulations.
Dive Insight:
EEOC has clarified previously that having specific days of the week off for religious reasons is generally a religious accommodation expected and protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, listing Sabbath days among other common accommodations sought in the workplace.
In September, the agency sued Apple for allegedly discriminating against a Jewish worker of 16 years by refusing to allow him Fridays and Saturdays off to observe the Sabbath. Similarly, in June, the agency sued Omni Hotels Management Corp., alleging a Chicago-based hotel owned by the company illegally denied a worker’s request to not work Sundays for religious reasons. Both cases remain pending in the courts.
Weekdays off as a religious accommodation was at the center of a recent landmark Supreme Court case, 2023’s Groff v. DeJoy. In that case, which involved a U.S. Postal Service employee’s religious request for Sundays off, the court raised the bar for establishing undue hardship, determining it can be shown only “when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” not just when it poses “more than a de minimis cost.”
The Marriott companies, which sell timeshare programs for hotels and vacation clubs, did not admit liability in the settlement. Rather, the two parties came to an agreement “in the interest of resolving this matter, and to avoid further cost of litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations,” according to the consent decree.
