In employment law, religious discrimination cases account for a very small portion of the employment lawsuits filed. In my experience as a New Jersey employment lawyer, I have seen very few religious discrimination cases. But when they are filed, they certainly are interesting.
In Webb v. City of Philadelphia, a Police officer's religious discrimination lawsuit brought because the employer declined her request to wear religious garb with her uniform failed as a matter of law. The 3rd Circuit United States Court of Appeals, which is binding, or highly persuasive, for cases brought under New Jersey employment laws, ruled in favor of the employer, City of Philadelphia, finding that the Muslim Officer's religious request to wear a garb created an undue burden on the City. The Court of Appeals recognized that the employee presented a prima facie case of religious discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but found that the employee's case must fail because the employer had at stake the perception of its impartiality by citizens of all races and religions whom the police are charged to serve and protect. Therefore, the employee's request created an undue burden.
The Court of Appeals distinguished a similar case brought by New Jersey employment lawyers in Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark. In that case the Court held that the City of Newark was required to create a religious exemption to its "no-beards" policy because the City already created an exemption to the same policy for medical reasons. The discriminatory intent was therefore quite obvious.
Interestingly, the Court of Appeals went out of its way to point out that the ruling was only based on the facts presented at the district court level. Throughout the opinion it is clear that there were facts that were not developed or presented at the district court level which may have impacted the Court's decision.
Perhaps the Court of Appeals was sending a signal that this issue could be heard again. But then again, the Circuit Court issued the decision as precedential. I guess we will have to wait and see.
