A recent case from the Second Circuit illustrates the growing tension between religious discrimination claims and protection of LGBTQ rights under Title VII. In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment against an employee who alleged that, by being forced to attend mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination trainings, he was subject to religious discrimination.
The employer is a public education collaborative in New York that serves as an extension of local school districts. After being made aware that a transgender employee had requested accommodations to facilitate a gender transition, the employer agreed to provide a gender-neutral bathroom and LGBTQ anti-discrimination training. The plaintiff, an account clerk at the school, objected to attending the anti-discrimination training on the grounds that he was a devout Christian, that his beliefs regarding homosexuality are dictated to him by scripture, and that he did not want to be subjected to indoctrination that contradicts the tenets of his faith. The plaintiff additionally requested a training to teach greater cultural sensitivity towards persons of faith.
After the plaintiff repeatedly refused to attend the mandatory LGBTQ training, he was cited for insubordination, and eventually terminated for misconduct. The plaintiff then brought a 7-count complaint alleging, among other things, violations of due process and equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as religious discrimination claims under Title VII. The District Court held that plaintiff was part of a protected class as he was a genuine adherent of a religious faith. The trial court, however, declined to find he had been discriminated against on the basis of his religion. In particular, the court noted that the mandated sensitivity training was not administered in a malicious or discriminatory manner, and that the training was also mandated for all employees (and not just for Christians).
The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling on procedural grounds in a summary order that did not address the substance of the arguments made on summary judgment. Nevertheless, this case highlights the tension that employers can face in attempting to accommodate LGBTQ employees and employees who are since religious believers. Both classes are protected under Title VII.
Though the employer in Zdunski acted appropriately and provided clear non-discriminatory grounds for terminating the plaintiff, it is easy to see how employers might fall into an inevitable litigation trap in attempting to accommodate different protected classes. Given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which carved out a significant religious exception for LGBTQ Title VII protections, this will not be the last time the courts will be called to reconcile the tensions between accommodations for religious believers and LGBTQ individuals.