From Pumariega v. Basis Global Technologies, Inc., decided Monday by Judge Lindsay Jenkins (N.D. Ill.):
{The following factual allegations are taken from Pumariega’s Second Amended Complaint and are accepted as true for the purposes of the motion. In setting forth the facts at the pleading stage, the Court does not vouch for their accuracy.}
Pumariega worked remotely from Florida for an Illinois-based company, Basis. In November 2022, Pumariega received an email from Basis’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Department announcing an upcoming virtual, mandatory training on December 6, 2022. The email laid out the agenda which included (1) reviewing “LGBTQ+ terminology related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression – including words to avoid;” (2) discussing “a variety of gender-expansive pronouns that [one] may encounter in the workplace;” and (3) considering “a variety of ways that [one] can demonstrate … allyship to folks who are transgender and/or nonbinary, as well as resources to help … learn more.” Pumariega, who is a devout Christian, did not request a religious accommodation to be excused from the event and attended the DEI training.
During the training presenters discussed gender identity, sexuality, sexual orientation as a scale, use of inclusive language, and preferred pronouns. Employees were instructed to use inclusive language when referring to groups in the workplace, and to consider where they fell on the sexual orientation scale—presented as a continuum stretching from “straight” to “gay/lesbian.” In Pumariega’s view, these concepts conflict with his Christian ideology, specifically the belief that there is no “sexuality scale” and that romantic relationships should only be between a man and a woman.
In approximately February 2023, Pumariega submitted anonymous feedback to the DEI team about the December training. Without disclosing his religious beliefs or indicating a religious objection to the training, Pumariega explained that, in his opinion, the topics discussed were inappropriate for the workplace.
In a May 2023 meeting with his supervisor, Drew Schuch, Pumariega revealed his Christian beliefs, expressed that the mandatory training conflicted with those beliefs, and requested an accommodation to skip future mandatory DEI trainings. Schuch assured Pumariega that Basis could not fire him on account of his religious beliefs and directed him to discuss the issue with Cassie Clark, Basis’s Manager of Talent Partners.
On June 1, 2023, the DEI team sent a company-wide email announcing various activities for Pride Month, beginning with Drag Brunch Trivia on June 16, 2023. Pumariega believed these events were mandatory. The same day Pumariega contacted Clark asking to set up a call with the appropriate person to address his concerns about discussing sexuality in the workplace. He did not reveal his religious objection to these discussions or request a religious accommodation. Clark directed him to Alyssa Dietch, Basis’s Talent Relations Specialist, and the two spoke on June 6, 2023.
Pumariega told Dietch about his religious beliefs, explained the DEI events—the mandatory December 2022 training and planned Pride Month events in June—conflicted with those beliefs, and he should not be required to attend. In addition, he requested a meeting with Basis’s executive team and DEI team to discuss his view that these types of events were not appropriate.
On June 15, 2023, before any Pride Month events, Pumariega was fired.
Pumariega sued, and the court allowed his Title VII religious discrimination claim to go forward:
For his claims to survive a motion to dismiss, all Pumariega must allege is that he was subjected to an adverse employment action because of his religion….
Pumariega met this requirement. He alleges that Basis fired him because of his sincerely held religious beliefs. Taking Pumariega’s allegations as true, Basis knew about his Christian beliefs and fired him days after he complained about DEI training on that basis and requested an accommodation. At the motion to dismiss stage, that is sufficient….
The court likewise allowed Pumariega’s retaliation claim to go forward:
Pumariega alleges he was fired in retaliation for his complaints about engaging or participating in discussions of sexuality at work…. To qualify as protected activity the employee must root their objection in “[religious] discrimination” or allege “sufficient facts to raise that inference.” It doesn’t matter whether the DEI trainings and Pride Month events are “actually prohibited by Title VII; the employee need only have a good-faith and reasonable belief that he is opposing unlawful conduct.”
Pumariega adequately pled a claim of retaliation. He alleges that during the May 2023 meeting with his supervisor and the June 6, 2023, call with Dietch he explained that his objection to DEI events was founded on his membership in a protected class—being Christian. Therefore, his complaints are “sufficient to constitute a report of discrimination under Title VII.” Furthermore, Pumariega alleges that his complaints derived from his genuine belief that the DEI events conflicted with his religious beliefs, not from any personal bias….
The court rejected Pumariega’s failure to accommodate claim, though:
To maintain his failure to accommodate claims, Pumariega must allege that “(1) the observance, practice, or belief conflicting with an employment requirement is religious in nature; (2) the employee called the religious observance, practice, or belief to the employer’s attention; and (3) the religious observance, practice, or belief was the basis for the employee’s discriminatory treatment.” Central to a failure to accommodate claim is the employer’s awareness of the employee’s protected class. Pumariega must allege that he told Basis about his Christian beliefs. He must also identify an “employment requirement.”
Pumariega’s complaint dances around what “employment requirement” is at issue, citing “discussions of sexuality in the workplace.” The only two relevant events alleged in the complaint are (1) the December 6, 2022, mandatory DEI training and (2) the Pride Month events which he believed were mandatory. He does not allege other mandatory DEI events were planned or that Basis had a stand-alone policy requiring discussions of sexuality.
Taking those two events in turn, the December 6, 2022, mandatory DEI training was plainly an employment requirement; employees were required to affirm that they attended the training. However, Pumariega did not notify anyone at Basis of his religious beliefs prior to that event. Consequently, he cannot maintain a failure to accommodate claim based on that mandatory training.
Turning to the Pride Week events, even accepting that Pumariega believed the events were mandatory, and therefore an “employment requirement,” he was fired before any events occurred and before his accommodation request was denied. While Pumariega’s allegations sound in employment discrimination they are a poor fit for a failure to accommodate claim. The crux of his complaint is not that Basis failed to accommodate him; he does not allege Basis made a decision on his request one way or the other. Instead, the heart of his complaint is that he was fired after voicing his disagreement with discussions of sexuality in the workplace and requesting an accommodation. Those allegations are cognizable under Pumariega’s other causes of action.
{Basis argues that Pumariega failed to allege a conflict between his religious beliefs and Basis’s DEI events. However, judges are not to “dissect religious beliefs” because “it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the [plaintiff] … correctly perceived the commands of their … faith.”} …
The post Religious Discrimination Claims Related to Ex-Employee’s Objecting to Participating in “LGBTQ+” Events Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.
