The past few decades have seen a Supreme Court receptive to claims brought on the basis of freedom of religion. For example, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (June 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring employers to cover contraception burdened the religious freedom of the owners of closely held corporations. More recently, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (June 2021), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with Catholic Social Services for foster care unless they agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. While the facts, arguments, and reasoning greatly differ between these cases and others like them, one thing seemed consistent: the Supreme Court generally ruled in favor of arguments based on religious freedoms.
Despite this trend, the Supreme Court recently denied a petition for writ of certiorari, after the Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of his employer’s motion for summary judgment in a religious discrimination case. In Snyder v. Arconic, Corp., Daniel Snyder, a former employee, sued Arconic after he published a statement to a message board on the Arconic company-wide intranet, which stated his displeasure with a rainbow displayed on the company’s intranet during Pride month. Specifically, Snyder wrote that “[the rainbow] is a abomination to God. Rainbow is not meant to be displayed as a sign for sexual gender.” As a result, Snyder was ultimately fired for violating Arconic’s policy prohibiting employee “conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion towards someone because of” a protected characteristic as well as their antiharassment policy. Snyder then sued for religious discrimination and retaliation.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s granting of Arconic’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no conflict between Snyder’s religious belief, practice, or observance and Arconic’s facially neutral employment requirements. Notably, the Eighth Circuit wrote that Snyder’s religion did not cause him to post on Arconic’s intranet website, “either by compelling him to post his comment about the rainbow broadly, or by merely suggesting, encouraging, or inspiring him to do so.” Moreover, the Eighth Circuit noted that Arconic’s policy does not regulate employees’ beliefs but instead prohibits employee conduct that created a hostile or offensive work environment. The Eighth Circuit also emphasized Arconic’s explanation that Snyder was not fired for his religious beliefs (and that Snyder himself did not argue he was fired for merely possessing his belief about the rainbow).
What does this mean for employers moving forward? The Eighth Circuit’s opinion signals that religion cannot be used as a blanket defense for all hostile or discriminatory statements or conduct by an employee. A facially neutral policy can be enforced when employee actions fall outside the scope of religiously compelled conduct. Nevertheless, employers should ensure that any disciplinary decisions are based on non-religious conduct and not on the religious beliefs an employee may use for justifying their conduct.
