Losing His Job or Losing His God’: Security officer sues Walden Security over beard length

Article Originally Published Here

What You Need to Know

• Former protective security officer Kirk Richards alleges that Walden Security failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and subjected him to religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
• Richards, a Hebrew Israelite, practices his faith by wearing a beard longer than Walden accommodated in the event he would have to wear a respirator in the event of an emergency.
• The district court judge concluded that accusations that Walden failed to accommodate religion and retaliation claims would be best decided by a jury.

A federal judge has allowed a former protective security officer’s religious discrimination case against his employer to proceed on allegations that he was terminated for refusing to trim his beard in observation of his faith.

Kirk Richards, a former protective securities officer at the Social Security Administration, filed a 10-count complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in October 2020, accusing Walden Security of discrimination and retaliation claims under Title 20 of the Maryland State Government Code and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to the district court’s opinion filed Wednesday.

Walden maintained a “clean-shaven” grooming policy. While Richards was initially granted a religious exemption from this standard, Walden only permitted facial hair no longer than one-quarter inch in length because protective securities officers had to be able to wear N95 respirators in the event of an emergency, prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, according to the opinion.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration prohibits N95 respirators from being “‘worn by employees who have facial hair that comes between the sealing surface of the facepieces and the face,’” the opinion said.

As a devout Hebrew Israelite, Richards practiced his faith by wearing a beard longer than Walden’s accommodated length requirement. When Richards refused to trim his beard to one-quarter of an inch, he was fired in June 2019 for violating the company’s grooming standards, the opinion said.

In the course of litigation, Walden filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that its accommodations were reasonable in light of Richards’ religious obligations and that it would have suffered undue hardship from penalties from the SSA for failure to comply with contract requirements, the opinion said.

“Walden’s main argument was ‘[W]e need our protective security officers to be able to wear N95 masks because we need to be able to respond to safety risks and safety concerns,’” explained Richards’ attorney, Onyebuchim Aduire Chinwah of The Chinwah Firm. “The problem is, if that were true, then Walden would have done certain things to make sure its employees were ready for emergencies. OSHA says for N95 masks, you have to medically clear your employees and you have to fit test them. Walden didn’t do any of that. So how can you say that you want your employees to be ready to wear N95 masks but not do what the law requires you to do to make sure they’re ready?”

Richards further claimed that Walden had no protocols for determining whether it could supply a sufficient number of N95s to officers in the event of an emergency and an issue requiring him to wear one never arose during his employment. Walden further admitted that it would not always need every officer on duty to wear an N95 in the event of an emergency, the opinion said.

Richards argued that he was still able to perform his duties and that “Walden’s proffered accommodation did not eliminate the religious conflict, but instead forced plaintiff to choose between losing his job or losing his God,” the opinion said.

On July 20, Judge Julie R. Rubin granted in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Title 20 and Title VII claims of disparate treatment based on religion, hostile work environment based on religion, and retaliatory hostile working environment, finding the plaintiff did not address the defendant’s arguments.

However, Rubin denied Walden’s motion pertaining to two counts each of failure to accommodate religion and retaliation under Title 20 and Title VII, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the accommodation was reasonable and whether Richards’ requested accommodation would impose undue hardship on the employer.

“There are several facts in the record that speak to whether plaintiff was fired because of his religious practice or his refusal to trim his beard,” Rubin wrote. “The weight and credibility of those facts are best determined by a fact finder. Importantly, plaintiff raises the fact that Walden never prepared to utilize, or actually utilized, the N95 masks that served as the basis for requiring plaintiff to trim his beard to one-quarter inch. The fact finder must evaluate the credibility of Walden’s claims that it had a legitimate purpose for terminating plaintiff.”

On Monday, Chinwah told Law.com that he was happy with the judge’s ruling because the standard for what constitutes a reasonable religious accommodation is a difficult standard when applied to the plaintiffs.

“What’s interesting about this case is there’s a circuit split right now on the degree to which an employer should go to accommodate an employee’s religious practices,” he said. “The Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits say that an employer’s religious accommodation is reasonable under Title VII only if the accommodation eliminates the conflict between the employee’s religious practice and the employer’s work requirements entirely. The Fourth Circuit, where we brought this case, doesn’t say that. The Fourth Circuit says an accommodation that does not eliminate the conflict between an employee’s religious practice and the employer’s work requirements entirely may still be a reasonable accommodation under Title VII.”

A message seeking comment from Donald E. English Jr., office managing principal at Jackson Lewis in Baltimore, was not immediately returned.