No Religious Discrimination in Firing Employee Because of Controversy Caused by Employee’s Removing Israeli Hostage Posters

Ali v. Mindful Care, Inc., decided two weeks ago by the Illinois Human Rights Commission rejected claims by Ali, who had been an employee of a mental health services clinic. (Commissioners Janice M. Glenn and Gregory E. Vaci wrote the opinion, with Commissioner Mony Ruiz-Velasco dissenting.) Ali claimed that:

[O]n January 3, 2024, a video she was in gained popularity on social media… [T]he video was made on December 29, 2023, and showed Petitioner, off duty, taking down a poster that was attached to an outdoor pole. [According to the employer,] {the video showed Petitioner removing posters depicting children that were kidnapped in Israel on October 7, 2022, by the group Hamas and being held hostage} …. [I]n response to the video, she was harassed by hate groups, including one that she called “Stop Antisemitism.” … [T]he poster she was taking down was intended to create fear, justify the genocide in Palestine, and encouraged the killing of Palestinian children….

Petitioner was allegedly fired on the grounds that “the video was not a good look for Employer,” that the employer “was being called antisemitic by online commentators” and was “losing patients as a result of the video” and “the action Petitioner took was misaligned with Employer’s core values and … Petitioner’s conduct showed a lack of empathy toward the events on October 7, 2022.”

Petitioner claimed:

[Petitioner] is Muslim and holds genuine religious beliefs associated with Islam…. [T]he sanctity of human life is included in her religious beliefs and the idea that every life is worthy of equal respect and dignity, regardless of their religion…. Islam teaches that resistance in the face of oppression, expulsion, and persecution of faith is necessary, and that resistance can take many forms and need not be violent…. [T]he need to resist was especially prevalent because, among other reasons, Muslims around the world view solidarity with Palestinians and resistance to Israeli occupation as an act of their Islamic faith….

The panel rejected Ali’s religious harassment claim:

The alleged harassing conduct occurred off Employer’s premises, outside of work hours, and was conducted by third-party persons, none of whom were employed by employer. Therefore, the alleged harassment did not alter Petitioner’s terms and conditions of employment or create a hostile or abusive working environment….

And it rejected Ali’s religious discrimination claim:

Petitioner claims that Employer subjected her to unlawful employment discrimination when it discharged her on January 4, 2024, on account of her religion. Specifically, Petitioner claims that Employer discharged her in response to the December 29, 2023, video of her pulling down a poster while off work. However, … there are no references in Respondent’s record to similarly situated employees outside of Petitioner’s protected class that were treated more favorably under the circumstances….

[And u]nlike in previous Commission cases [such as one] {finding substantial evidence of pregnancy-based unlawful discrimination without a comparator where there was additional evidence, including statements related to the petitioner’s pregnancy and conduct such as interrupting or interfering with her pumping, indicating that the petitioner’s discharge was pregnancy-related}, in this case, there are no references in Respondent’s record to Employer’s statements or conduct directly implicating Petitioner’s religion so as to create an inference of religious-based discrimination….

Note that the decision doesn’t discuss any religious accommodation claim, presumably because Ali didn’t raise it. She had said that her religious beliefs caused her to take down the flyers (as an act of “solidarity with Palestinians and resistance to Israeli occupation as an act of their Islamic faith”). Therefore, in principle, she could have argued that the employer had to accommodate her religious beliefs by not firing her, unless it could show “undue hardship” (see Groff v. DeJoy (2023)); Illinois religious discrimination law includes a duty of reasonable accommodation just like federal law does. It would have been interesting to see what the Commission would have made of the argument.