Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

‘Mark of the devil’ religious discrimination case can proceed

Reprints
‘Mark of the devil’ religious discrimination case can proceed

A U.S. District Court has refused to dismiss a religious discrimination and retaliation case in which a bus driver charged she was terminated after refusing to be fingerprinted because she said it was forbidden by the Bible.

The case, which involves a Pennsylvania school bus driver, brings to mind June’s ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia in U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Consol Energy Inc. et al., which upheld a $586,861 award to a mining worker who felt forced to retire when he refused to use a hand scanner for religious reasons, saying it related to the biblical “mark of the beast.”

Bonnie F. Kaite, who was hired by Altoona, Pennsylvania-based Altoona Student Transportation Inc., in 2001, was told in November 2015 that in accordance with a newly enacted state law she was required to be fingerprinted, according to Monday’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in Bonnie F. Kaite v. Altoona Student Transportation Inc.

Ms. Kaite, a devout Christian, told her employer that according to her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” the Bible’s Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the Devil,” which she believes includes fingerprinting, “and that she will not get into heaven” if she submits to it.

Although the bus company acknowledged that at least one employee with “unusable” fingerprints had participated in an alternative background check, Ms. Kaite was told no accommodations were available. She was terminated on Dec. 31, 2015.

Ms. Kaite filed suit, charging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and violation of state law. The District Court refused to dismiss the case. Ms. Kaite has established a prima facie case of religious discrimination and retaliation, said the ruling.

The bus company “avers that it contacted various governmental entities in a good faith attempt to accommodate Plaintiff but, through those conversations, concluded that it could not do so without subjecting itself to an undue hardship.

“However, this Court cannot weigh the veracity of (the bus company’s) alternative facts at this time, as it must accept as true the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint,” said the ruling by Judge Kim R. Gibson.

“Plaintiff will need to provide facts to substantiate the allegations in her complaint if she hopes to prevail,” said the ruling, however, in denying her former employer’s motion to dismiss the case.

Eric B. Meyer, a partner at Dilworth Paxson L.L.P. in Philadelphia, said the ruling is “not surprising given that we’re so early in the case. The judge made it clear he based his ruling on what was pleaded in the complaint.”

The bus company “did its best to try to convince the judge early on this this isn’t going to go anywhere, but Judge Gibson is bound by the rules of civil discovery, so they’re going to have to go into discovery,” he said. “I struggle to see how they could have accommodated this bus driver.”

Mr. Meyer also said while religious accommodation cases are common, mark of the beast and devil cases are rare.

 

Read Next

  • 'Mark of the Beast' case puts spotlight on religious accommodation

    A U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case in which a mining worker was awarded $586,860 for allegedly being forced to retire because he refused to use a biometric hand scanner for religious reasons, saying it related to the “Mark of the Beast,” should serve as a warning to employers to take religious accommodation requests seriously, attorneys say.