The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals says it might be‼️
In the opinion attached to my LinkedIn post, a Sixth Circuit panel revived a lawsuit filed by Brad Amos, a former video editor who alleged that he was terminated from his job at Lampo Group (now Ramsey Solutions) in 2020 due to his efforts to adhere to COVID-19 safety measures. This reinstatement comes as the court endorsed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stance on religious nonconformity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Amos, who worked for the Tennessee-based company, claimed he was dismissed after he chose to follow COVID-19 precautions—such as social distancing, mask-wearing, and requesting to work remotely—despite the company’s Christian leadership advocating that prayer was the sole method to prevent COVID-19. During the pandemic, Lampo Group not only rejected remote work but also continued to conduct in-person meetings and prayer sessions, dismissing other safety measures.
Initially, a trial court dismissed Amos’s lawsuit, asserting that Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination only apply when conflicts arise from the employee’s own religious beliefs, not those of the employer. However, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the trial court either failed to recognize the claim or misapplied the legal standards.
The panel emphasized that Title VII does indeed protect employees from discrimination based on their refusal to conform to their employer’s religious practices.
The panel supported the EEOC’s view that Title VII includes protections against “religious nonconformity”—where an employee faces discrimination for not adhering to an employer’s religious beliefs—even if the employee’s own beliefs are not religious or directly involved in the conflict. The court found that the term “religious nonconformity” was more appropriate than “reverse religious discrimination” and noted that this area of law is still evolving.
In its decision, the panel referenced decisions from other circuits and explained that a religious nonconformity claim involves an assertion that discrimination occurred because the employee did not align with the employer’s religious beliefs. The court concluded that Amos’s claim that his dismissal was due to his nonconformity with Lampo’s religious practices was valid under Title VII.
Additionally, Amos argued that his adherence to COVID-19 precautions was based on his personal religious convictions, including a belief that “God helps those that help themselves” and the principle of doing no harm. The panel agreed that this aspect of Amos’s claim—his belief that taking precautions was a part of his faith and integral to his responsibility towards others—was also sufficient to proceed.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling reinstates both Amos’s religious discrimination claims under Title VII and the corresponding Tennessee state law, signaling a significant acknowledgment of religious nonconformity protections in employment law.
Courts have long recognized religious nonconformity allegations, but employers may be less aware of this area of Title VII.
Many religious employers, such as churches and nonsecular schools, are entitled to an exemption from Title VII’s ban on religious bias. The exemption provides legal clearance to prefer members of their own faith and prohibits any nonconformity claim.
In the Sixth Circuit case, however, the employer was a private organization with religious owners. Thus, the exemption did not apply. Religious nonconformity allegations therefore emerge only when an employee is treated unevenly for not following the faith-based practices imposed by religious company leaders of an otherwise secular organization.