Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
325 P.3d 193, 180 Wash. 2d 481 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) implicitly requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees' religious practices, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. This duty exists even though the statute does not contain an express accommodation provision.
Facts:
- James Kumar, Ranveer Singh, Asegedew Gefe, and Abbas Kosymov worked for Gate Gourmet Inc., a company that prepares meals for trains and airplanes near SeaTac airport.
- Due to security concerns, Gate Gourmet's policy barred employees from bringing their own food to work or leaving the premises during their 30-minute lunch break.
- Gate Gourmet provided all employee meals, which were the only food available to them during their shifts.
- The employees informed Gate Gourmet that their religious beliefs, which included dietary restrictions, prohibited them from eating the company-provided meals, which they alleged contained animal by-products and forbidden meats like beef and pork.
- In response to complaints, Gate Gourmet temporarily switched to turkey meatballs but later reverted to a beef-pork mixture without notifying the employees.
- The employees alleged this deception caused them to unknowingly consume food forbidden by their religious beliefs.
- Gate Gourmet ultimately refused to alter the employee meals, forcing the employees to choose between eating food that violated their religious beliefs or going without food during their work shifts.
Procedural Posture:
- James Kumar and other employees filed a class action lawsuit against Gate Gourmet Inc. in Washington superior court (trial court).
- The complaint alleged violations of the WLAD for failure to accommodate and disparate impact, as well as common law torts of battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Gate Gourmet filed a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court granted Gate Gourmet's motion and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.
- The employees (appellants) sought and were granted direct review by the Washington Supreme Court, bypassing the intermediate court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) create a cause of action for an employer's failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practices, despite the absence of an explicit statutory mandate to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - McCloud, J.
Yes, the WLAD creates a cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practices. The court holds that the WLAD must be construed broadly to eliminate discrimination, and this includes an implied duty for employers to accommodate religious practices. This interpretation is consistent with federal case law interpreting Title VII, which Washington courts look to for guidance. The court reasons that since the WLAD is interpreted to prohibit facially neutral policies that have a disparate impact on protected classes, it is logical to also recognize an implied requirement to accommodate religious practices to avoid such impacts. The court disapproves of the lower court's holding in Short v. Battle Ground School District and finds that the Washington Human Rights Commission's failure to enact a specific rule does not diminish the protections inherent in the statute itself. The court also held that the employees successfully stated claims for disparate impact, battery (by deceptively causing an offensive contact), and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Dissenting - Madsen, C.J.
No, the WLAD does not create an implied cause of action for religious accommodation. The majority engages in judicial lawmaking by creating a new cause of action that the legislature has not enacted and the Human Rights Commission has not established through its rulemaking authority. The legislature's silence should be respected, and the court's reliance on cases involving disability accommodation is misplaced, as those were supported by existing administrative regulations. Furthermore, even if such a cause of action existed, the employees failed to state a prima facie case because they did not allege an adverse employment action, such as being disciplined or discharged, which is a required element of a failure-to-accommodate claim under federal law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands employee protections under Washington state law by establishing, for the first time at the state supreme court level, an implied duty of religious accommodation within the WLAD. By aligning the WLAD's protections with those under Title VII without an explicit statutory command, the court affirmed a broad, liberal construction of the state's anti-discrimination laws. This ruling creates a new cause of action for employees in Washington and signals to employers that facially neutral policies must be evaluated for their impact on employees' religious practices. It solidifies the principle that preventing discriminatory effects is as important as preventing discriminatory intent under the WLAD.
