This article originally appeared onThe Defenderand was republished with permission.
Guest post bySuzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
AnOklahoma manufacturerwill pay $4.25 million to more than 40 former employees after federal officials found the company violated anti-discrimination laws when it enforced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate without allowing religious or medical exemptions, according to asettlementannounced this week.
TheU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) said A G Equipment Company, which makes natural gas compressor systems, implemented a companywide vaccine requirement in 2021 and told workers no exemptions would be permitted.
Employees who later requested religious or medical accommodations were not engaged in a review process and were instead terminated, according to the EEOC.
The agency alleged that on Oct. 15, 2021, the company fired all 43 workers who had not provided proof of vaccination, including those who had formally sought exemptions.
Federal officials said the company’s actions violatedTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964and theAmericans with Disabilities Act. Both laws require employers to consider reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs and certain medical conditions unless doing so would cause undue hardship.
Under the three-year consent decree settling the case, the company will provide $4.25 million in monetary relief to the workers. It will also be required to implement training on anti-discrimination laws, revise its accommodation policies, and notify employees of their right to request religious or disability-based exemptions, according to the EEOC.
EEOC officials said employers remain obligated to evaluate accommodation requests even during public health emergencies.
“When these workers asked for a simple religious accommodation, the company didn’t pause to listen or even consider the impact,” Patrick J. Holman, a trial attorney with the EEOC’s Oklahoma City Area Office, said in astatement. “It fired every one of them outright — without a conversation and without any real inquiry into whether granting an accommodation would have caused the business any hardship at all.”
Source: The Vigilant Fox
