ILNews

Nigerian immigrant's religious discrimination suit carries cautions for employers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sikiru Adeyeye had a mission when his father died in Nigeria three years ago. Letters to his employer asking to take one week of paid vacation and several weeks off without pay expressed the urgency of his obligation.

“This is very important for me to be there in order to participate in the funeral rite according to our custom and tradition,” one letter noted in outlining the detailed, weeks-long rituals Adeyeye said he was compelled to perform as his father’s eldest child and only son.

religion_photo016-15col.jpg Sikiru Adeyeye (center) leads a procession as part of his father’s burial rights in Ile-Oluji, Nigeria. The Indianapolis man who lost his job after he took time off for the rites may pursue a religious discrimination suit, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. (photo submitted)

“This is done … so that the death will not come or take away any of the children’s life,” read the first handwritten request for time off submitted by Adeyeye, who then was a material handler and packer at Heartland Sweeteners in Indianapolis.

Heartland denied the leave requests, notifying Adeyeye, “You not being at work for that period of time would negatively affect the business.” Adeyeye was told he’d been fired when he returned, a decision that a federal District Court affirmed when it granted summary judgment in favor of the company on Adeyeye’s religious discrimination complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals last week reinstated Sikiru Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 12-3820, holding that Adeyeye had a case that could not be disposed of through summary judgment and ruling in remarkably frank language.

“Heartland argues that Adeyeye’s termination was caused by his absence rather than the refusal to accommodate his religious beliefs. This is sophistry,” Judge David Hamilton wrote. “Adeyeye was absent to observe his religious practices, and he was fired as a result of that absence. It is as simple as that. There is ample evidence indicating that Adeyeye’s religious observance caused his termination.”

The panel’s opinion also cautions that courts should avoid weighing employers’ arguments about the sincerity of beliefs, among other things, when religious accommodation is considered.

The 7th Circuit reversed summary judgment granted by Judge William T. Lawrence of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, who said Adeyeye did not present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find he provided notice of the religious nature of his request for unpaid leave.

“We disagree,” Hamilton wrote for the court. “Whether or not Adeyeye’s letters might have justified holding as a matter of law that they provided sufficient notice of the religious nature of his request (a question we do not decide), they certainly are sufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Heartland had notice of the religious nature of the request. We also find that genuine issues of material fact prevent us from affirming summary judgment on any of the other grounds argued by Heartland.”

The company had argued it was entitled to summary judgment on questions of whether it had notice of the religious nature of the request, whether Adeyeye sincerely held his professed beliefs, whether his religious observance caused his termination, and whether an accommodation of his request would have created an undue hardship.

Jeffrey Macey, an attorney at Macey Swanson and Allman in Indianapolis, said Adeyeye’s letters gave the company ample notice. “The court really just looked at the language of the request,” Macey said.

Adeyeye “also testified, ‘I have to do it, otherwise I’m going to suffer consequences – spiritual consequences, religious consequences’,” Macey said.

“He is a Christian,” Macey said of his client. “His father had a Christian burial, there was a priest there, but the Christianity in his village relies on traditionally African practices.”

James B. Chapman II, a Benesch partner representing Heartland, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case.

In the 7th Circuit opinion, Hamilton wrote that employers should avoid arguments about whether someone requesting a religious accommodation sincerely holds beliefs.

“The prospect that courts would begin to inquire into the personal reasons an individual has for holding a religious belief would create a slippery slope we have no desire to descend. Has the plaintiff had a true conversion experience? Is he following religious practices that are embedded in his culture and family upbringing? Is he making Pascal’s coldly rational wager to believe in God based on his self-interest? These questions are simply not an appropriate or necessary line of inquiry for courts. We are not and should not be in the business of deciding whether a person holds religious beliefs for the ‘proper’ reasons,” Hamilton wrote.

That reasoning resonated with Notre Dame University School of Law professor Rick Garnett. “It is true that Title VII only requires accommodation of employees’ religious beliefs, obligations, and practices if the employee is ‘sincere,’ but it is also true that courts wisely avoid getting into psycho-analyzing or finely parsing the reasons why a belief is held,” Garnett said.

“The ‘sincerity’ inquiry functions as a filter, to weed out sham and disingenuous claims for accommodation, but it is not supposed to authorize a judicial inquiry into the genealogy of a claimant’s religious beliefs,” he said.

Macey said Adeyeye, married with a young daughter, is now working as a care provider in the home health care industry. “I think we’re just expecting to try the case,” Macey said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT