7th Circuit Strikes Down Illinois Conceal and Carry Law

The Seventh Circuit struck down Illinois Conceal and Carry Ban today. The Court held

"The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment compelled the appeals court to rule the ban unconstitutional, the judges said. But the court gave 180 days to "allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public."

Now the ball is in the legislature's hands in order to craft time and place restrictions in the next six months.  Most likely, there will be additional permits and training requirements, in line with the City of Chicago's handgun restrictions.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story?track=rss

Employer considerations for employee's religious needs

*** Recent article I wrote for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin -- it contains some considerations for those that have employees when considering accomodations for their religious needs.  The law protects our rights to practice our religion, however, it balances that right with the needs of our employers. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

In a recent opinion, the Seventh Circuit shed light on what is a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious needs.  In doing so, the Court gave employers some guidance and framework for how to deal with such issues. In Porter v. City of Chicago, No. 11-2006 (Decided November 8, 2012), the Seventh Circuit upheld a district court's ruling granting summary judgment for the employer, the City of Chicago, in a Title VII action. The decision, authored by Circuit Judge Bauer, affirmed District Judge Virginia Kendall's opinion that the employee was offered reasonable accommodations for her religious needs by the City.

Ms. Porter was a Senior Data Entry Specialist for the City of Chicago in the Field Services Section of the records department for the Chicago Police Department. The data specialists are civilian employees that process information into electronic databases, such as processing the location about towed, stolen, or repossessed vehicles. The Field Services Section operates twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Ms. Porter, who identified herself as Christian, attends church services, bible studies, and prayer services at the Apostolic Church of God. She would attend church services every Sunday, as well as church related events on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday nights. It was undisputed that church services were held on Sunday at 9:00 am, 11:45 am, and sometimes 4:00 pm.

Prior to 2005, Ms. Porter had the Sunday and Monday shifts off.  Based on a need in her division at the time, Ms. Porter’s off-days were switched to Friday and Saturday. She requested an accommodation so that she could attend her church services on Sunday. She requested to be switched back to the group with Sundays and Mondays off. The City did not grant her request, but instead offered to change Porter to a later watch on Sundays starting at 3 pm to allow her to attend church services in the morning. Porter filed suit alleging that the reassignment of her off days violated Title VII because it failed to accommodate her religious practices and discriminated against her based on her religion. The City moved for summary judgment arguing that they attempted to reasonably accommodate Porter.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the City attempted to reasonably accommodate Porter by offering to change her shift time on Sundays. The Court held that the offer to assign Porter to a later shift on Sunday was sufficient accommodation for purposes of Title VII where the assignment would allow Porter to attend morning church services without affecting her pay or benefits. The Seventh Circuit cited the Supreme Court decision in Ansonia v. Bd. Of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60,70, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) and held that Title VII is meant to ensure that an individual can observe religious practices, but is not meant to mandate an employer to grant every accommodation at all costs.

The fact that plaintiff wanted entire Sundays off as her preferred accommodation did not mandate a different result. In fact the Seventh Circuit's holding cites the Supreme Court's decision in Philbrook, where the Supreme Court held that the accommodation need not be  the employee’s preferred accommodation, but only needs to reasonably "eliminate the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices." Philbrook, 479 U.S. at 70.

The Seventh Circuit’s strong opinion should give employers confidence as they encounter issues with employees of any religious background.  If the employer makes a legitimate effort to accommodate the employee’s religious needs, the employer should feel somewhat secure from Title VII liability. Further, in this holding the Seventh Circuit reiterated that the act of offering an accommodation is sufficient if it would reasonably cure the conflict between the employment and religious practice, regardless of whether the employee actually accepts the offer.

 In reiterating the concepts from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Philbrook, the Seventh Circuit continued its pro-business stance.  The Court certainly takes into consideration the difficulties employers face, especially in tough economic times, and will not require an employer to grant every accommodation request. In this holding, instead, the Seventh Circuit has reiterated that employers need only make reasonable efforts to accommodate.

 Of course, in Porter, the accommodation offered was an easy solution because services were held at three different times on Sundays. This holding would not necessarily carry the day if the employee’s religion dictated that she could not work at all that day, or if the accommodation somehow would have affected her pay or benefits.  As the Court noted, an employer cannot be asked to grant every accommodation at all costs, but instead is asked to make reasonable accommodations.  The district courts will certainly continue looking at the facts of each situation and utilizing a balancing test to determine whether the accommodation offered is reasonable, just as Judge Kendall did in this case. Employers need to be aware of this balancing when weighing the accommodation offered against the religious need of the employee.