In Applewhite et al v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Education, 2024 WL 3718675 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate religion claim.
From the decision:
A plaintiff bringing a Title VII religious discrimination claim for failure to accommodate must allege that she “(1) has a bona fide religious belief conflicting with an employment requirement; (2) informed her employer of this belief; and (3) was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.” Beickert v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 22-CV-5265, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170719, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023) (citing Baker v. Home Depot, 445 F.3d 541, 546 (2d Cir. 2006)). If the plaintiff satisfies these requirements, “the employer must offer [her] a reasonable accommodation, unless doing so would cause the employer to suffer an undue hardship.’ ” Id. (quoting Baker, 445 F.3d at 546).
Salahuddin alleges that the defendants “fail[ed] to provide religious accommodation” “for four consecutive years,” despite “being aware of her religious observance of Ramadan,” by “giving her excessive workloads,” “subject[ing] her to irregular schedule rotating throughout the school and assigning additional tasks that impacted her Ramadan religious fasting observance.” (ECF No. 70 ¶¶ 35, 71, 128–29; see also id. ¶¶ 94, 130–31; ECF No. 87 at 4.) By “failing to protect her religious observance, … Salahuddin endured hardships while fasting.” (Id. ¶ 71.) In the opposition, Salahuddin alleges additionally that the defendants did not accommodate her observance of Shabban. (ECF No. 87 at 18.)
The defendants agree that Salahuddin “has a bona fide religious belief” and that they were aware of that belief. Beickert, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170719, at *6. But Salahuddin does not allege that her observance of Ramadan and Shabban “conflict[ed] with an employment requirement,” id., and does not explain in the complaint how “irregular schedule rotating” and assignment of “additional tasks” “impacted” her observance or caused her to “endure[ ] hardships while fasting” (ECF No. 70 ¶¶ 35, 71). See, e.g., Muslim v. Sagamore Children’s Psych. Ctr., No. 22-CV-7850, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124278, at *14–15 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2024) (finding this element not satisfied by “vague and unsupported statements related to [a plaintiff’s] religious beliefs”); Cagle v. Weill Cornell Med., 680 F. Supp. 3d 428, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (“Bald allegations that a plaintiff has a religious belief and that those religious beliefs conflict with an employment requirement are insufficient to state a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII.” (citations omitted)).
Moreover, Salahuddin does not allege that the DOE was aware that there was any conflict, only that it was aware of her religious observances. See, e.g., Marte v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., No. 22-CV-3491, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186884, at *9–10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2022) (finding that the plaintiff did not state a religious accommodation claim where “the employee [did not] make her employer aware that there was a conflict between her religious belief and the employment requirement”). Nor does she allege that she was disciplined in any manner for failing to comply with an employment requirement. See Ahmad v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 20-CV-675, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62986, at *53 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (“[A]n individual must have suffered some type of discipline or demotion—or at least the threat of discipline or demotion—in order to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination pursuant to Title VII.” (quoting Gueye v. Evans, No. 04-CV-6029, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82925, at *17–18 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006), aff’d sub nom. Gueye v. Gutierrez, 277 F. App’x 70 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order))); see also, e.g., Mines v. City of New York/DHS, No. 11-CV-7886, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157782, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2013) (plaintiff must show that he was “ ‘threatened with discipline’ or suffered some ‘adverse employment action’ for failing to report to work on the days she requested to take off for religious accommodation” (quoting Siddiqi v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 353, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2008))).
Based on the foregoing, the court concluded that plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed.