In my years of HR administration, employment law practice and consulting I've learned a lot. This includes religions of which I had never heard such as the Church of Body Modification and the Kemetic Religion as well as practices with which I was not familiar.
When religious observance clashes with workplace policies it sometimes comes from sources and needs we did not anticipate. For employers this ranges from dietary needs to dress codes to flu shots to now workplace technologies.
On August 21st a federal court awarded a total of $586,860 in lost wages (front and back pay), benefits and compensatory damages to one former employee of the defendant employer and its parent corporation finding the companies forced the former employee to retire in violation of Title VII. The included the initial award of $150,000 awarded by a jury in this case on January 15, 2015.
What happened? The employer required employees to use a newly installed biometric hand scanner to track time and attendance. The employee repeatedly inform company that submitting to biometric hand scanning violated his sincerely held religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian. He also wrote a letter to company officials explaining his beliefs about the relationship between hand-scanning technology and the "Mark of the Beast" and the Antichrist discussed in the New Testament's Book of Revelation, and requesting an exemption from the hand scanning based on his religious beliefs. The employee offered to continue to submit his time sheets manually or to use a time clock.
In response, the employer offered only that he could have his left hand scanned face up rather than his right hand palm down. Otherwise, the employee would be disciplined up to and including discharge if he refused to scan his hand, according to the lawsuit. EEOC charged that Butcher was forced to retire because the companies refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for his religious beliefs.
Lessons learned? If you are an employer with 15 or more employees you are covered not only under Title VII but also under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As such, you are likely (or should be) familiar with the ADA's requirement to engage in an interactive dialogue with an individual with a disability to determine what reasonable accommodations, if any can be provided. That's a proactive practice when it comes to reasonable accommodation under Title VII. Notice the EEOC's description that the employer, "refused to consider alternate means of tracking."
Let business needs drive your employment decisions. Be able to explain what options are available, if any. And if none of those options are viable, why not? How will those options adversely impact your business operations?
Tip #1: The employer had its own devil to deal with in this case; it was in the detail. The evidence revealed that the employer had accommodated two other employees who were missing fingers and excused them from the scanning protocol. Remember to follow not only your own policy but your past practice as well or, see the above and be able to explain the exception.
Tip #2: It appears the employer may have relied on advice from its vendor that installed the biometric scanner. The vendor advised the employer that the Mark of the Beast could only occur if the right hand was scanned. Perhaps not the best advice here. Be sure to conduct your own research into such matters.
Tip #3: Want some more guidance? The EEOC's website provides lots of information and resources here.
| 
