The EEOC's Battlecry: Cracking down hard on Religious Discrimination
2 min read
Nov 4, 2015
On the heels of the biggest religious discrimination case in years, and in line with the EEOC's "hottest litigation trend" (according to David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC, pictured right), the EEOC continued its charge against religious discrimination in the workplace in EEOC v. Star Transport Co., Inc. Last week, a Northern District of Illinois jury awarded two Muslim truck drivers $240,000 finding Start Transport fired them for refusing to transport alcohol despite their religious beliefs.
Naturally, Star Transport's argument failed and the jury awarded the two drivers $40,000 in compensatory and $200,000 in punitive damages.
The Star Transport case is just one of a multitude of religious discrimination cases the EEOC brought this year. Others include the National Tire and Battery case (Arab and Muslim mechanics accused of making bombs), the Consol Energy/Consolidation Coal case (employee who saw "Mark of the Beast" in biometric scanner forced to retire), the National Federation of the Blind case (Hebrew Pentecostal employee refused to work on Saturdays), the Dunkin' Donuts case (employer revoked job offer because applicant couldn't work on Saturdays), the other UPS case (employees who wore beards as part of their religious observance were not promoted until they shaved) (not to be confused with the UPS pregnancy discrimination case), and the Rotten Ralph's Restaurant case (Muslim employee refused to remove headscarf). And those are just the cases dating back to July.
Ultimately, employers should be extremely vigilant about taking potentially discriminatory actions against employees, especially for seemingly religious reasons. The EEOC has certainly made its intentions to take a harsh stance against religious discrimination known, and the cases they choose to litigate are increasingly high-profile. Employers should carefully evaluate any potentially discriminatory adverse action so as not to become another EEOC test case.
Featured Insights

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

