Partner Emily Mahler Secures Dismissal of All Claims in EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit

Pittsburgh Partner Emily Mahler successfully obtained dismissal of all claims in a Title VII lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Intervenor Plaintiff against our client, a business process outsourcing provider, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Intervenor Plaintiff, a former customer care specialist, alleged he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of religion and denied reasonable accommodation for his sincerely held religious beliefs, due to his alleged constructive discharge from employment with the company. Following an administrative investigation, the EEOC filed a lawsuit asserting alleged violations of Title VII on the basis of these claims.

Intervenor Plaintiff claimed that he was unreasonably asked to provide documentation to support his request for time off due to a sincerely held religious belief that he was required to abstain from work on particular days, then subject to adverse employment action, culminating in his constructive discharge when he failed to produce the requested documentation.

Resolving the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, the court agreed with our position that, because an employer is generally permitted to seek “additional supporting information” where the employer “has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief or practice,” such request was reasonable under the circumstances presented to the court in this case.

Furthermore, the Court determined that Intervenor Plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action as required to prevail on his failure to accommodate claim, noting that the accumulation of attendance “points” and requirement that he attend a meeting to discuss those points did not constitute adverse action under Third Circuit precedent. Finally, the Court determined that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the Intervenor Plaintiff was subjected to a work environment so objectively intolerable that a reasonable worker in his position would have resigned, noting that Intervenor Plaintiff presented only his “subjective fears of possible future dismissal” as alleged evidence of the same. ” Case dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice, and judgment entered in favor of Defendant.