Dive Brief:
- A lab operator for the U.S. Department of Energy should prevail in a Christian employee resource group’s lawsuit alleging it discriminated against the ERG when it revoked sponsorship over a policy disagreement, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held July 29.
- The plaintiffs in the case, Christians in the Workplace Networking Group v. National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, claimed their employer withdrew sponsorship when the ERG refused to amend its leadership criteria. Specifically, Sandia said a requirement that ERG leaders be “willing to attest to a Christian statement of faith and adhere to Christian Biblical standards of conduct” was discriminatory and in conflict with the employer’s nondiscrimination policies.
- The ERG sued, claiming, among other things, that Sandia’s withdrawal constituted religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A district court sided with Sandia, holding that the ERG failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination. The 10th Circuit affirmed, stating that the ERG did not plead elements necessary to establish such a case and therefore waived any such arguments.
Dive Insight:
The court’s analysis included references to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which struck down requirements that plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII show they suffered “significant” harm. Instead, a unanimous court agreed that employees need only show they experienced some harm to state a claim under Title VII.
Sandia argued, among other things, that the ERG failed to show the employer had taken an adverse employment action against it. The district court agreed, holding that the ERG “made no arguments about its prima facie case” and submitted no evidence that its members were fired or suffered a significant change in employment status as a result of the withdrawn sponsorship.
The 10th Circuit affirmed and held that, even under the new standard set by Muldrow, the ERG “failed to preserve any argument concerning its prima facie case in the district court.”
Sandia also won out on the ERG’s separate claims that the employer violated its members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, with the 10th Circuit holding that the ERG is an “improper plaintiff” to allege such claims. It similarly dismissed the group’s civil conspiracy claims against Sandia.
Some employment law experts have cautioned that Muldrow could lead to an influx of discrimination claims, though others who previously spoke to HR Dive disputed this. Sources also noted that the ruling may create some ambiguities regarding what degree of harm plaintiffs must allege and that employers may need to more carefully consider the potential harm of certain workplace decisions.