Corrections Trainee's Religious Discrimination Suit Over Shaving Mandate Remanded for Hearing
A New Jersey appeals court has reinstated a suit against the state Department of Corrections claiming failure to accommodate the religious practices of a trainee who declined to follow DOC rules requiring the shaving of facial hair.
September 10, 2018 at 03:53 PM
3 minute read
A New Jersey appeals court has reinstated a suit against the state Department of Corrections claiming failure to accommodate the religious practices of a trainee who declined to follow DOC rules requiring the shaving of facial hair.
The Appellate Division on Monday said the trainee's lawsuit, alleging violations under the state Law Against Discrimination, should not have been dismissed on summary judgment.
Judges Thomas Sumners Jr. and Robert Gilson remanded the case, directing the motion judge to develop a more complete record detailing the DOC's facial hair policies, and any moves it may have made to accommodate the religious beliefs of plaintiff Marven Roseus.
“There is no record established that the DOC acted in 'a bona fide effort' or that it is 'unable to reasonably accommodate' plaintiff's religious practice without 'undue hardship,'” the appeals court said, quoting language from the LAD.
Roseus is a member of Israel United in Christ, according to the ruling, and identifies himself as Jewish. The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified the Bronx-based group as a member of the Hebrew Israelite movement.
According to the court, Roseus, who doesn't shave his beard or head, joined a DOC training program in 2016. Several days into the program, a DOC officer told Roseus that he would have to shave his facial hair in order to continue with the program, the suit claims.
Roseus, citing the tenets of his religion, filed a formal request for a religious accommodation, which his lawsuit said was denied. He refused to shave his facial hair and was dismissed from the training program, the court said.
He filed his lawsuit in Union County against the DOC in January 2017, citing four violations of the LAD: discriminatory failure to hire, discriminatory discharge, failure to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief, and discrimination in a place of public accommodation.
A motion judge dismissed the claim, pointing to Roseus' failure to state a viable claim. The judge also said the DOC's requirement for clean-shaven faces was “neutral” and “permissible.”
The Appellate Division in its unpublished ruling cited one controlling case on the issue: a 2008 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Valdes v. New Jersey. There, the plaintiff, who also was seeking a job as a corrections officer, refused to shave his beard. The DOC reached an accommodation, though, in which it said the plaintiff could continue in the job if he cut his facial hair to one-eighth of an inch.
The plaintiff in Valdes agreed to that condition, but later reneged and was terminated. The Third Circuit affirmed a finding that the policy was neutral and reasonable and that the DOC had attempted to make a reasonable accommodation.
The Roseus court on Monday said the state could not rely on the ruling in Valdes since there was no showing that the DOC made any effort to accommodate Roseus' needs.
“When a religious practice is at issue, LAD requires the employer to demonstrate both (1) a bona fide effort to accommodate; and (2) that an accommodation would cause an undue hardship,” the judges said in the per curiam decision. “Here there was no record of either.”
Roseus' attorney, Deborah Mains of Costello & Mains in Mount Laurel, said she was “thrilled” that there will be a hearing on the merits of the case.
The Attorney General's Office, which represented the DOC, declined to comment on the ruling.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250