Bruff v. North Miss. Health Services, Inc.,

Bruff v. North Miss. Health Services, Inc.,
No. 99-60175 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2001)

An Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor sued her employer, alleging religious
discrimination under Title VII, after she was terminated for refusal to counsel
homosexuals and those involved in extra-marital relationships on issues involving
their intimate relationships. The counselor argued that she was entitled to
a reasonable accommodation in the form of being excused from performing duties
which violated her religious beliefs. At trial, the jury returned a verdict
for the counselor, finding that the hospital had violated Title VII.

The Appellate Court reversed, holding that
despite the fact that the woman established a prima facie case of religious
discrimination, judgment as a matter of law had to be granted for the hospital.
According to the Court, accommodating the counselor’s religious beliefs would
present an undue burden to the hospital, which would have to force its two other
EAP counselors to assume a disproportionate burden of the EAP caseload and
travel along with the woman to her counseling sessions in case a taboo topic
arose. Also, the hospital would be forced to provide lower quality service to
homosexual clients and clients involved in extra-marital relationships since
those patients would be forced to receive counseling from multiple therapists in
an attempt to accommodate the one counselor.

The Court also held that the hospital satisfied
its duties under Title VII by offering the counselor a reasonable accommodation.
The hospital gave the counselor 30 days before her termination to seek another
position within the hospital which would not be as likely to give rise to
religious conflicts. While the hospital offered her the services of an
employment counselor, the counselor did not fully cooperate with these services
and was unable to find another position. The Court noted that an employer’s
accommodation does not have to conform to the employee’s preferences. Thus,
even though the counselor in this case was not fully satisfied with the
selection of other jobs available, the accommodation by the employer was
satisfactory under Title VII.