11th Circuit Examines Religious Discrimination
Last week, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion in the case of Daniel Dixon and Mary Sharon Dixon v. The Hallmark Companies, Inc., et al. The case arose from Florida, where the Dixons, a husband and wife team, where she was the on site property manager, and he was the on-site maintenance technician. While working at Thornwood, their third complex for the Hallmark Companies, they were provided a rent free apartment to live in adjacent to the complex's management office. Thornwood was a recipient of Federal Funds under the Department of Agriculture's rural development program, and was subject to periodic inspections. At one of the earlier complexes they managed, the Dixons had been informed that Hallmark's policy prohibited the display of religious items in the management office. During one inspection, at Thornwood, the Dixon's supervisor, Christina Saunders, was also present. She noticed that the Dixon's had hung on the wall a 26" x 50" picture of flowers with the words, "Remember the Lilies...Matthew 6:28". Ms Dixon confirmed to Ms. Saunders that the wording was a Bible citation, and Ms. Saunders directed her to remove the artwork. Ms. Saunders later testified that she believed that the artwork violated the Fair Housing Act and that she could lose her job if Hallmark was found to be in violation of the FHA. Ms Saunders contacted her supervisor, who instructed her to remove the picture from the wall herself, and to make sure that the Dixons understood the fair housing laws. A dispute arose, and Saunders ultimately fired the Dixon's. Although the testimony was disputed, at some point in time Ms. Dixon retrieved a picture of Jesus from her apartment and held it close to Ms. Saunders, asking if it offended her. Ms. Saunders allegedly said, "You're fired too. You're too religious". Ms. Saunders denied making the comment. Saunders instructed the Dixons to vacate the building within 72 hours.
The Dixons filed a lawsuit against Hallmark, alleging that Hallmark violated Title VII by intentionally discriminating against them, failing to accommodate their sincerely held religious beliefs and retaliating against them. Hallmark moved for, and the trial court granted Summary Judgment, holding that even if Ms. Saunders made the statement, "You're fired too. You're too religious", it was not direct evidence of religious discrimination. On appeal, the 11th Circuit reversed, finding that "Direct evidence of discrimination is evidence that, if believed, proves the existence of a fact without inference or presumption....only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could mean nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of some impermissible factor constitute direct evidence of discrimination". The statement allegedly made by Ms. Sanders was something for the jury to consider as to whether or not it was direct evidence of religious discrimination.
Practice pointer. According to EEOC records, the number of religious discrimination charges doubled between 1992 and 2007. They have continued to increase over the last 2 fiscal years. Since we are in the middle of the Holiday season for many religions, it is important to make sure that employees are not discriminated against based on their religious beliefs. An example of this is a lawsuit filed against Belks in North Carolina by the EEOC, alleging religious discrimination when a Jehovah's Witness was terminated for refusing to wear a Santa hat. According to the employee, she was prohibited by her religion from celebrating any secular or religious holiday, and Belks failed to accommodate her religious beliefs.
Make sure you’ve read our disclaimer prior to commenting.