Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: Motives Matter: Ignorance is No Defense for Employers in Religious Accommodation Cases


August 3, 2015

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of the United States made an important distinction with respect to employment decisions: what matters is not what an employer knows, but why an employer acts. As esoteric as the distinction may seem in the abstract, the ruling has real-world implications for employers encountering an increasingly-diversified pool of applicants and employees.

At issue in the case, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., was whether Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it refused to hire an otherwise-qualified candidate based on the headscarf she wore to her job interview. Following the interview, Abercrombie's interviewer sought advice from her superiors as to whether the scarf would violate Abercrombie's "Look Policy" that was in place at that time. (The Look Policy included a prohibition against wearing caps.) During her discussion with a manager, the interviewer stated she believed the applicant wore the headscarf for religious reasons. The manager informed her the headscarf violated the Look Policy and instructed the interviewer to forgo hiring the candidate.

The applicant is Muslim and wears the headscarf based upon her religious belief, as the interviewer had assumed. The EEOC sued Abercrombie on the applicant's behalf, alleging Abercrombie violated Title VII when it failed to accommodate the applicant's religious practice of wearing a headscarf. Abercrombie asserted it could not have discriminated against the candidate because it had no knowledge of her need for an accommodation.

In writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia addressed two key points regarding religious discrimination and accommodation under Title VII. First, the Court held Title VII does not incorporate a "knowledge" standard; rather, an applicant is required to show only that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's adverse decision. The Court emphasized this point by contrasting the language of Title VII with that of the Americans with Disability Act, which requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations of an applicant. Second, employers must proactively accommodate religious practices when doing so does not create an undue hardship. Simply treating religious practices as the employer would treat similar secular practices is impermissible. Thus, Abercrombie's argument that it did not discriminate against the applicant because she was subject to the same neutral "no caps" policy as all other applicants failed. Title VII, the Court held, requires employers to provide favored treatment to religious practices.

So where does the decision leave an employer wishing to avoid an assertion it discriminated against an applicant or employee because of that person's religion?

  • Do not act based upon assumptions. Because at issue in a religious discrimination dispute is the employer's motive rather than knowledge, you, as the employer, gain no points for sticking your head in the sand.
  • Make your policies clear, especially if you have concerns an applicant or employee may be unable to comply with those policies. In this instance, the interviewer could have stated the company requires employees to comply with a Look Policy, described the policy briefly (including the "no cap" rule it included), and asked whether there was any reason the applicant could not comply with the policy. (The interviewer could have addressed other store requirements, such as work availability, at this same time.)
  • If an applicant or employee states she is unable to comply with a policy, it is appropriate to inquire as to the reason. If a religious basis is stated, remember you are under an obligation as an employer to accommodate the applicant or employee unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.

As this case shows, willful ignorance will not protect employers from liability for discrimination. But this case also does not provide carte blanche for employers to press applicants and employees for information about their personal religious beliefs and practices. Rather, employers are reminded they must be transparent about their employment policies and expectations. Then, should an employee raise a concern about her ability to comply with a policy, the employer must seek sufficient information to determine whether the employee is entitled to accommodation.

These issues can be complex, placing employers in the unenviable position of determining how much to ask an employee about personal beliefs and practices. Never hesitate to call upon counsel to assist with interpreting employment discrimination law in light of a situation that arises in the workplace. The attorneys in the Labor & Employment Practice Group have experience with these issues and are available to advise employers regarding policy development and implementation.

For more labor and employment information, visit

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.