Category Archives: Religious Discrimination

Biometric Attendance Scanner or “Mark of the Beast”?: How an Employee’s Unusual Religious Belief Cost the Employer $600,000.

A recent case from the Fourth Circuit illustrates the risks for employers posed by the obligation to reasonably accommodate religious objections to workplace rules and practices under Title VII.  How should an employer handle accommodation requests based on religious beliefs that the employer views as misguided or even crazy?  A sincere religious belief, even if non-traditional or highly idiosyncratic, must often be reasonably accommodated by the employer, as recently demonstrated in EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., Case No. 16-1406, a case decided by the Fourth Circuit on June 12, 2017.

“The Mark of the Beast”

The case arose out of what defendant Consol Energy surely regarded as a non-controversial upgrade of its attendance monitoring system.  The coal mining company began using a biometric hand-scanner to record attendance, believing the system would be more reliable and accurate than an old-fashioned time clock or a requirement to report to a supervisor.

However, one of its miners, Beverly Butcher, who had worked at Consol for 37 years without incident, was a life-long evangelical Christian (and ordained minister) who believed that the biometric scanner would place the “Mark of the Beast” on his hand.  The Mark of the Beast (sometimes called the Number of the Beast) is a concept from the Book of Revelation that has been the subject of widely varying interpretations.  Mr. Butcher apparently regarded it as a brand possessed by followers of the Antichrist which allows the Antichrist to manipulate them.  He maintained that using the biometric scanning system would place the Mark of the Beast on him, even though the system leaves no actual “mark” of any kind.  He also insisted that this problem would persist even if he was allowed to use his left hand for scanning purposes (the Bible speaks of the Mark of the Beast only on the right hand).  Mr. Butcher’s beliefs were certainly idiosyncratic; his own pastor declined to fully endorse them when asked by the company.  But they were also sincere beliefs; no one questioned that Mr. Butcher actually believed that the biometric scanner would imperil his salvation.

Butcher sought permission to record his attendance in other ways.  After considerable discussion back and forth between Butcher and Consol, Consol simply insisted that he use the scanner or be subject to discipline, which would eventually include termination.  Butcher retired instead, even though he would have preferred to continue working.

Subsequently, however, Butcher learned that Consol was willing to allow two other employees to avoid using the scanner.  Two employees with hand injuries could not use the scanner, so they were allowed to enter their employee number on a key pad, an accommodation which imposed no cost or inconvenience.  Butcher complained of religious discrimination (since accommodations to the scanner were readily available for non-religious reasons).  The EEOC brought suit on his behalf, claiming failure to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, a violation of Title VII.

Sincere Belief and Reasonable Accommodation

Butcher prevailed at trial and was awarded $600,000 in compensatory damages and lost wages.  His claim for punitive damages was denied, however, on the grounds that Consol’s behavior was not egregious enough to warrant that relief.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the verdict on appeal.  The court noted that the elements of a religious accommodation claim are (1) the employee holds sincere religious beliefs; (2) the employee informs the employer of the beliefs; and (3) the employer nevertheless takes adverse action against the employee based on the religious beliefs.

As the Fourth Circuit viewed the case, the central problem was that Consol simply disagreed with the substance of Butcher’s religious beliefs.  The company did not think that its scanner placed the Mark of the Beast on Butcher.  Consol relied on the fact that the hand scanner system did not make any physical mark on the employee and therefore could not actually brand him with the Mark of the Beast.  But that was not what Butcher sincerely believed.  Similarly, even though the Bible discusses the Mark of the Beast as something found on the right hand, Butcher sincerely believed that scanning his left hand would cause the same problem.  Consol believed he was wrong in his beliefs, but that is not the test.  He was sincere.

The court also noted that Consol was perfectly willing to accommodate non-religious inability to use the scanner system; the other two employees with injury issues were allowed to enter their employee numbers on a key pad; and this caused no problems and imposed no costs, as the company itself admitted.  Therefore, Butcher had a sincere religious objection, and an easy, effective accommodation was available.  The company’s refusal to extend this accommodation to the employee based on his religious objections violated Title VII.

Compensatory Damages, Lost Wages, and Punitive Damages

The case also illustrates how Title VII claims can produce substantial damage awards.  Butcher found replacement employment after some time and also began drawing his pension from Consol, since he had technically retired from the company.   Consol claimed that the pension should be an offset to his lost wage claim.  The court disagreed, finding that the pension was a “collateral” source of income and did not reduce the lost wages portion of the employee’s recovery.  Butcher also recovered $150,000 in “compensatory” damages, which are independent of the direct economic impact of the violation.

However, Consol did prevail on the question of punitive damages.  The court found that even though the company violated Title VII by failing to Butcher, it took his concerns seriously, engaging in lengthy discussions in an attempt to find a mutually acceptable accommodation.

Lessons Learned

The case illustrates the following key points:

  • The duty of religious accommodation does not depend on the employer’s opinion of the merits of the employee’s religious belief. The test is the employee’s sincerity in his or her beliefs.
  • In virtually any discrimination case, the employer’s inconsistency is likely to be fatal to its defense. Here, Consol readily accommodated employees who had non-religious issues with the scanner.  The court thus had no difficulty in concluding that the only reason for the refusal to accommodate Butcher was his religious beliefs.
  • When a requested accommodation is extremely simple and inexpensive, courts tend to have little sympathy for an employer unwilling to apply it. Here, the keypad system was already in place for the two other employees and imposed no cost or inconvenience.  There was no issue of “undue hardship.”
  • Title VII damages can be substantial and can greatly exceed the pure economic loss suffered by the employee. Butcher recovered $150,000 in “compensatory” damages and was able to recover lost wages even though he was also drawing his company pension for the same time period.

Quirky Question #210, Employee Meals – Vegan Beliefs as a Religion


We subsidize a different meal in our employee cafeteria each week.  For example, last week hamburgers were only $2.00 instead of $5.00.  Usually we subsidize meat dishes.  A vegan employee has protested we do not similarly subsidize vegan dishes and has stated that our failure to do so constitutes religious discrimination.  This can’t be correct – right? Answer→

Quirky Question #202, Religious Accommodation


We have a group of employees who are Muslim and want to be allowed to take additional prayer breaks during Ramadan.   We would rather just have them take the whole day off as vacation rather than work a different shift than other employees with long breaks interspersed throughout the day.  Aren’t we safe telling them that they should take the day off? Answer→

Quirky Question # 181: Weekend Work and Religious Accommodations


Our company operates seven days a week. Periodically, employees advise us that working on Saturdays or Sundays interferes with their religious beliefs. When possible, we let employees juggle their schedules to accommodate the belief systems of their co-workers. And, sometimes, we require our employees to adjust their schedules to accommodate their co-workers.

Every now and then, however, accommodations are hard to reach. This is particularly true when the employees who otherwise might be available to adjust their schedules have greater seniority than the employees who are requesting the accommodation. They point out that their collective bargaining agreement gives them the right to reject our company’s request for the accommodation.

How should we reconcile the conflict between the religious beliefs of certain employees and the seniority rights of other employees? Do we have to accommodate the religious beliefs or risk a Title VII violation? Answer→

Another Religious Accommodation Issue, Quirky Question # 122

Quirky Question # 122:

I read the religious discrimination question posed to your colleague in Seattle.  We have a slightly different issue.  All of our employees are required to wear identification tags when they are in our buildings.  The IDs have their pictures on them.  One of our employees recently advised us that it violated his religious beliefs to have his photo taken or to include his photo on the ID tag he wears.  He has asked us to accommodate his religious beliefs by foregoing our requirement of photo IDs.  We believe that the photo IDs serve a number of important purposes at our company.  Must we accommodate his request to provide him special treatment on this issue. Answer→

Accommodating Religious Beliefs, Quirky Question # 120

Quirky Question # 120:

Our retail company has mandatory weekly sales meetings which occur across town from one of the store branches.  Each week, our store branch manager and his four salespersons must come from across town to the sales meeting.  Many of the salespersons are part-time employees and students, and consequently take public transportation to work.  The employees who are working a shift during which the meeting occurs have two options for getting to the weekly sales meeting:  (1) take public transportation; or (2) carpool with the store manager.  Two of the salespersons are male, two are female.

In the past, the store branch manager has driven the salespersons to the weekly sales meeting.  Recently, a new branch manager has been hired, and this arrangement is no longer working.  The new branch manager refuses, for what appears to be bona fide religious reasons, to carpool alone with any female employee.  The practical outcome of this situation is that when only one female employee needs a ride to the mandatory weekly sales meeting, she is usually left taking public transportation at the last minute because of the branch manager’s refusal to drive her to the meeting.  Female employees have been late, and sometimes missed the meeting as a result.  The female employees have complained to Human Resources.  The branch manager has explained the religious belief to the company.

The company has informed the branch manager that it is his responsibility to ensure that his employees are at the weekly sales meeting, and that he will be penalized if they are not because of his refusal to carpool.  The company’s human resources manager is troubled by this situation.  What should we do? Answer→

Long Hair and Religion, Quirky Question # 95

Quirky Question # 95:

I read with interest your analyses of beards and facial jewelry in the context of religious discrimination claims.  Maybe I’m beating this topical horse to death, but we’ve encountered a situation where an employee is claiming that his long hair is linked to his religious beliefs.  He refuses to cut his hair despite our clear “grooming policy” set forth in our Employee Handbook.

Do we have to accommodate the employee’s desire to have long hair?  I feel as though our company (and every other employer) is losing control over how our employees look.  Your guidance is appreciated. Answer→

Nose Rings, Facial Jewelry and Religion, Quirky Question # 92

Quirky Question # 92:

We have an employee who wears a nose ring.  Because she interacts regularly with the public, and because we have a “no facial jewelry” policy, we asked her to remove the nose ring.  She claims, however, that she wears the nose ring for “religious” reasons.  We’ve asked her to inform us of the religion that requires nose rings but she has not been forthcoming on that issue.  Our inclination is to terminate her employment if she does not modify her behavior and remove the nose ring.

I thought we had the right to control our company’s public image.  Can’t we impose certain appearance standards upon our employees?  What’s your advice? Answer→

Religious Discrimination — Beards; Quirky Question # 88

Quirky Question # 88:

We have various policies at our company relating to the appearance of our employees.  One of those policies is that our male employees must be clean shaven.  Several of our employees are protesting that policy on the ground that it constitutes religious discrimination.  Come again?  Is this legit?  Do we have to accommodate the requests of employees that undermine our policies with respect to the appearance of our employees? Answer→

Conflicts Between Religion and Other Discriminatory Prohibitions, Quirky Question # 58

Quirky Question # 58:

I read with interest your last question about a company’s obligation to accommodate an individual’s religious beliefs, assuming that it would not cause an undue hardship to the employer.  We have a slightly different problem.  One of our employee’s religious beliefs would appear to be in conflict with our anti-discrimination prohibitions.

Acknowledging the changing composition of our workforce and customers, our company instituted a diversity initiative.  As part of that effort, we display posters of some of our diverse employees (an African American, a woman, a Hispanic, an older employee, a disabled employee, and a Gay employee who is very active in our GLBT efforts).

Shortly after the posters were displayed, a long-term employee placed a quotation from the Bible in an overhead bin in his cubicle in large letters.  The quoted passage stated:  “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.”

Co-workers who sit by or have to pass by the employee’s cubicle have complained about the quotation as being contrary to the diversity and anti-harassment policies of the company.  They correctly point out that displaying this Bible quotation also appears to be in conflict with Minnesota’s prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.  When we approached the individual, he explained that he is a devout Christian who believes he must expose homosexuality as evil.

What recommendations do you have for resolving the conflict between our company’s obligations to prevent sexual orientation discrimination and our company’s obligation to accommodate different religious beliefs. Answer→