On April 2, 2004, in Buonanno v. AT&T, the Honorable Marcia Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado applied this test, handing down a decision that addressed Title VII's religious protection in the context of a company's diversity policy.
The Facts
On February 1, 2001, AT&T fired Albert Buonanno after two years of employment because he refused to sign a Certificate of Understanding binding him to abide by the company's new diversity policy. The only part of the policy in question read, "each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect, and value the differences among all of us." Although Buonanno had never discriminated and did not advocate discrimination of any kind, he was concerned that a literal interpretation of "value the differences among us" might require him to value behavior proscribed by Scripture, which violated his Christian faith. There was some evidence that Buonanno felt this tension might arise with regard to "valuing" homosexuality.
Buonanno brought his concerns first to his pastor and then to his immediate supervisor, who urged him to clarify the meaning of the language in question with AT&T Human Resources. Accordingly, Buonanno wrote a letter to the human resources manager explaining his perceived conflict between the language in the diversity policy and his faith. HR did not advise any supervisor to terminate Buonanno.
However, AT&T informed Buonanno that he would have to sign the policy if he wanted to keep his job. AT&T conveyed the ultimatum to Buonanno without discussing the meaning of the challenged language or clarifying Buonanno's concerns about how the provision conflicted with his faith. When Buonanno attempted to discuss the meaning and possible limitations of the provision, bringing up "neo-Nazi skinheads" as an example, AT&T dismissed the conversation as "philosophical debate." Furthermore, when it endeavored to devise some way to work around the challenged language or the signing of the certificate, the manager refused to cooperate. Thus, the parties reached an impasse. Buonanno explained he could not sign the certificate without further clarification of the challenged language. His supervisor fired him solely based upon his refusal.
The Decision
In addition to a claim of direct religious discrimination that the court found unpersuasive, Buonanno brought a claim against AT&T based on its failure to accommodate his religious beliefs. The court then applied the burden-shifting test outlined above and concluded that Buonanno established a prima facie case that: (1) neither party disputed Buonanno had bona fide religious beliefs that he felt conflicted with the diversity policy; (2) Buonanno communicated his concerns about this conflict to AT&T; and (3) AT&T fired Buonanno because of his failure to adopt the diversity policy. The court stated that Buonanno's letter to his supervisor and comments he made at the meeting put AT&T on notice of his religious conflict and triggered the process of seeking reasonable accommodation. Thus, the burden shifted to AT&T, which argued that it could not have reasonably accommodated Buonanno because excepting him from the challenged language would have defeated the purpose and value of the diversity policy. In response, the court acknowledged the goal of uniform application and the possible hardship in allowing employees to opt out of portions of the diversity policy. However, the court concluded that (1) had AT&T inquired into Buonanno's concerns before firing him, it may have found there was no actual conflict or, in the alternative, (2) AT&T could have remedied the conflict with reasonable accommodation.
The court expounded on the plethora of options that AT&T could have exercised in order to avoid the current situation. First, had AT&T explored Buonanno's concerns instead of insisting that he agree with an ambiguous policy, it would have found he agreed with all of the policy except the literal interpretation of the one clause regarding "valuing the differences" among all employees. Then it could have explained to Buonanno that it understood the policy to have a figurative meaning, and there was no conflict between the policy and his beliefs. In fact, although five different corporate officials at AT&T testified to different understandings of what AT&T intended the challenged language to require, none of them advocated a literal interpretation. Thus, had any supervisor communicated with Buonanno, the issue could have been resolved without any need for accommodation.
The court continued to explain that even if there had been a conflict, AT&T could have made minor changes to the challenged language without undue hardship to reflect AT&T's apparent view that a literal interpretation of "value" was not necessary to achieve the objective of the diversity policy. The court also noted that whether this revision should be characterized as part of reasonable accommodation for Buonanno or just AT&T clarifying its own interpretation of the policy was irrelevant.
Therefore, the court held that AT&T was liable under Title VII because it failed to "engage in the required dialogue with Buonanno upon notice of his concerns" and it failed to "clarify the challenged language to reasonably accommodate Buonanno's religious beliefs." Consequently, the court awarded Buonanno $146,269 in damages to cover lost back pay, lost 401(k) matching contributions from the time of termination to trial, prejudgment interest on economic losses, emotional distress, and lost front pay reduced to present value.
Practical Application
Achieving diversity in the workplace is essential for every employer, and the Buonanno court recognized it was a "legitimate and laudable business goal." Certainly, the court's holding in this case should not lead employers to fear requiring an employee's assent to a diversity policy or to abandon other efforts to achieve a diverse workforce. However, Buonanno does suggest that, in both drafting and applying diversity policies, employers should be sensitive to the possibility of creating tensions between the policy and an employee's religious practices and beliefs.
If an employee does bring such concerns to an employer's attention, the employer may be reluctant to explore an employee's exact religious beliefs and the perceived conflict with company policy. However, the Buonanno court showed that such hesitation may be a risky approach. In effect, the court recognized that implicit within the duty to accommodate is the basic duty to communicate. Therefore, an employer should establish a healthy dialogue with the employee, explicitly identify his or her concerns to ensure no miscommunication, clarify whether a conflict even exists between the policy and the employee's beliefs, and then analyze how it may reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship. Employers should be mindful that rewording a diversity policy or similar provision may constitute reasonable accommodation where it simply provides more accurate information on the company's interpretation of the policy.
In summation, although the district court presented a narrow holding in Buonanno, this case should serve as a warning to employers not to jump to conclusions about reasonable accommodation and undue hardship before first communicating with the employee and establishing that an actual conflict exists between the company's requirement and the employee's religious convictions.
The author would like to thank Jessica Grether for her significant contributions to the research and writing of this article.
Gilbert M. Román is a partner in RJ&L's Denver office where he focuses on labor and employment law, litigation, and Alternative Dispute Resolution. He is a mediator with the American Arbitration Association and has written and given lectures on the topic. He provides assistance to clients on a wide range of employment-related issues, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. Mr. Roman is a 1987 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
