Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Kroger Company

In spring of 2019, Brenda Lawson, 72, and Trudy Rickerd, 57, were fired from their positions as employees of a Kroger Grocery Store in Arkansas for refusing to abide by the company dress code due to their religious beliefs. The Kroger grocery store mandated that their employees wear an apron with an embroidered rainbow heart on them. Though the rainbow flag has long been recognized as a symbol for LGBTQ community, there is no evidence that Kroger intended to show solidarity for the LGTBQ movement through the use of the rainbow heart on its uniforms. Both Lawson and Rickerd believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, viewing homosexuality as a sin and saw the Kroger uniform as “an endorsement for the LGBTQ community.” Lawson and Rickerd offered to cover up the embroidery with a name-tag, or purchase a new apron from the company to avoid wearing the rainbow heart. This was made as a religious request for an accommodation to the dress code. Kroger denied the request and later fired the women from the store. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Kroger on behalf of Lawson and Rickerd, claiming that their religious rights protected in both the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, were being violated. The lawsuit also argues that other employees who refused to wear the apron for non-religious reasons were “treated more favorably” than the women who claimed religious beliefs behind their refusal to abide by the dress code. Lawson and Rickerd are seeking financial compensation for “emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life” as well as reform of store policies.

 

The salient issue in this case is that Lawson and Rickerd believe they were fired solely because of their religious beliefs, a violation of their right to free exercise protected under the First Amendment as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which “protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.” However, the Kroger company chain recently experienced a management overhaul, and many employees across the country have been fired from their positions. With no explicit evidence of the intent of the embroidered rainbow heart from Kroger, is it constitutional for Kroger to mandate these aprons as their dress code, regardless of whether employees object due to religious reasons? Lawson and Rickerd believe their firings were directly related to their religious beliefs and their request for accommodation. Since other Kroger employees who refused to wear the apron for non-religious reasons were not fired, Kroger appeared to target Lawson and Rickerd personally. The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the case of Lawson and Rickerd, refusing to wear the aprons embroidered with a rainbow heart was an action of their right to free exercise of religion. The mandate from the store to wear the aprons was seen as an infringement of their rights, and their firing was seen as discrimination against their religious beliefs. 

As the lawsuit against Kroger continues, I believe the denial of accommodation and the eventual firing of Lawson and Rickerd is unconstitutional because of the infringement of the right to free exercise under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Although the Kroger company is a private business, the Civil Rights Act applies to any place of “public accommodation” in the United States, including private owned grocery stores. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures that employees are not discriminated against in the workplace because of their religious beliefs. In the 2015 case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc, the court ruled that employers should be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “for refusing to hire an applicant based on a religious observance or practice” even if the employer did not have direct knowledge that a religious accommodation was required. In this case, the court held that Title VII creates an affirmative duty to ensure that religious practices are accommodated in the workplace, whether the employer is made aware of an employee's religious beliefs or not. This applies to hiring processes as well as already hired employees. Based on this case, Lawson and Rickerd should have had their religious beliefs accommodated, no matter what they disapprove of or support. 

           

The accommodation refusal leading to the firing of Lawson and Rickerd was not a neutral action. Other employees who refused to wear the apron for non-religious reasons were not fired by Kroger management, demonstrating that religious beliefs were directly targeted and suppressed. Intolerance of a person’s religious beliefs is not an overriding or compelling enough interest of the state or a business to infringe upon the guaranteed freedoms granted by the First Amendment. In the 1986 United States Supreme Court Case, Goldman v Weinberger, the Air Force prohibited head gear from being worn, even by those who requested accommodation for religious purposes, such as an Orthodox Jew who would typically wear a yarmulke. The court first ruled that it was constitutional for the Air Force to regulate such religious apparel because the military was supposed to "foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps." However, in 1987 Congress passed legislation allowing members of the military to wear religious apparel based on their First Amendment right to free exercise, effectively reversing the 1986 decision. In the case of Lawson and Rickerd, having the freedom to not wear apparel mandated by the grocery store because of religious beliefs is similar to Goldman wanting the freedom to wear religious apparel in the military. The Kroger grocery store also does not have a compelling interest close to that of the United States military in terms of making sure all employees are dressed uniformly. If the military must be accommodating to religious beliefs, it does not seem like a burden on the Kroger company to accommodate such requests. The rationale between these two issues is virtually the same, which is why I believe any court would side in favor of Lawson and Rickerd, as their right to free exercise of religion is clearly being impeded upon. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the First Amendment protect against religious discrimination and the infringment of free exercise. The declination for accommodation and the eventual firing of Brenda Lawson and Trudy Rickerd, both long time employees of Kroger, violated their constitutional right to free exercise of religion and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.