A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

How workers’ religion is protected under the law

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

It has been more than two months since we discussed the outcome of a woman’s employment discrimination lawsuit against preppy clothing chain Abercrombie & Fitch. As a reminder, the woman was not hired as a salesperson because managers decided that her Muslim headscarf, known as a hijab, was not acceptable attire.

The woman prevailed in her suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that potential employees need not ask for their religious rights to be honored while applying for a job for the employer to be obligated to honor those rights. Among those rights is for employees to have their religious beliefs reasonably accommodated at their workplace.

This means that the employer must provide accommodation, as long as the worker can still do his or her work in a satisfactory manner. For example, say a Jewish employee wants to take the day off due to a religious holiday. In most cases, this would be a reasonable accommodation. Or say a Muslim woman wears a burqa because of her beliefs. This should be fairly easy to accommodate for most employers.

Besides that, workers enjoy protection against workplace discrimination on the basis of faith, such as not being hired or promoted because of their religion, thanks to laws like the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unfortunately, in 2015 some employers continue to discriminate against certain religions in the workplace, or fail to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees’ religious beliefs, rituals or apparel. To protect themselves and others from these insidious practices, workers have the right to seek compensation in court.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.