Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.

Supreme Court of the State of Washington · 2014 · Torts

TortsEmployment discriminationReligious discriminationReasonable accommodationDisparate impactBatteryNegligent infliction of emotional distressWLAD

Facts

The employees worked for Gate Gourmet near SeaTac airport preparing meals for trains and airplanes. Because of security rules, they could not bring food to work or leave the premises during their 30-minute lunch break, so they had to rely on employer-provided meals. They alleged that the available meals violated their sincere religious beliefs, that they informed Gate Gourmet of the conflict, and that the company first temporarily changed the menu, then switched back without notice and refused further accommodation. They further alleged that some employees unknowingly ate prohibited food, others had to choose between eating forbidden food and going without food, and they suffered offensive touching and distress as a result.

Issue

Does the WLAD create a cause of action requiring employers to reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices even though the statute contains no express accommodation language? If so, did the employees adequately plead claims for religious accommodation, disparate impact, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Rule

The WLAD's prohibition on employment discrimination because of creed implies a duty to reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices. A prima facie religious accommodation claim is pleaded by alleging that (1) the employee had a bona fide religious belief whose practice conflicted with employment duties, (2) the employee informed the employer of the belief and conflict, and (3) the employer responded with threatened or actual discriminatory treatment; the employer may defend by showing a reasonable accommodation or undue hardship. A prima facie disparate impact claim requires a facially neutral employment practice that falls more harshly on a protected class. Battery consists of an intentional, unpermitted harmful or offensive contact, including where consent is procured by fraud.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a packaging plant in Tacoma, Elena Ortiz sincerely observes a religion that forbids handling products on a weekly holy day. Her scheduled shift always includes that day, and she tells her supervisor at Cascadia Parcel Systems about the conflict. The supervisor replies that the company will not consider any change and that Elena must either work that shift or lose hours.

Assuming Washington law applies and the case is at the pleading stage, has Elena adequately stated a prima facie claim for failure to accommodate religious practices?

Explanation. A prima facie religious accommodation claim is pleaded by alleging (1) a bona fide religious belief whose practice conflicts with employment duties, (2) notice to the employer, and (3) threatened or actual discriminatory treatment. The employer's reasonable-accommodation or undue-hardship arguments are defenses, not pleading requirements for the employee. The majority also rejected the view that Washington lacks such a claim merely because the statute is silent. (Derived from Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. (n.d.).)