Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 83-2275
| Decision Date | 12 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2275,83-2275 |
| Citation | 734 F.2d 1382 |
| Parties | 34 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1816, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,441, 1984-1985 O.S.H.D. ( 26,936 Manjit Singh BHATIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William C. McNeill, III, Pearl, McNeill, Gillespie & Standish, Oakland, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Anne E. Libbin, William Gaus, Michael Salinsky, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before SNEED and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and QUACKENBUSH, * District Judge.
Bhatia sued Chevron under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2 (1982), claiming that Chevron had discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. The parties filed stipulated facts, and the district court awarded summary judgment to Chevron. Bhatia appeals.
In 1982, Chevron adopted a safety policy designed to comply with standards promulgated by California's Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Chevron's policy required all employees whose duties involved potential exposure to toxic gases to shave any facial hair that prevented them from achieving a gas-tight face seal when wearing a respirator. Chevron announced that it would test all affected employees with respirators to confirm that they could achieve a gas-tight seal. Chevron terminated three employees for refusing to shave.
All machinists were included in the category of affected employees. Machinists' duties include field work involving potential exposure to toxic gases and shop work involving exposure to other hazardous substances. Chevron also relies on its machinists as a labor pool for emergency fire fighting, toxic gas containment, and rescue in the event of an accident. Not all machinists perform tasks requiring the use of respirators. Because the assignment of particular machinists to particular tasks is unpredictable, however, Chevron requires each machinist to be able to use a respirator safely.
Bhatia had been working as a machinist for several years at the time Chevron adopted its safety policy. He informed Chevron that he could not comply with its policy because he was a devout Sikh and the Sikh religion proscribes the cutting or shaving of any body hair. Chevron processed an application to transfer Bhatia to a job that would not require use of a respirator and suspended Bhatia without pay until it could find a position for him. After six weeks, Chevron advised Bhatia that it could not find a position that paid as much as Bhatia's machinist job but did not require use of a respirator. Chevron then searched for a lower paying position. The following month, Chevron offered Bhatia three clerical jobs. Bhatia refused all three. He asked Chevron to permit him to resume work as a machinist, noting that in the years he had held the position, he had not been required to use a respirator. Chevron then offered Bhatia a janitorial position that paid 17% less than a machinist's wage. Bhatia turned the job down. Chevron asked Bhatia to reconsider, and promised to return him to a machinist position if respiratory equipment were developed that could be used safely with a beard. Bhatia initially refused to take the position unless Chevron could guarantee his return to a machinist position within six months. When Chevron refused to make that promise, however, Bhatia accepted the transfer to the janitorial job.
Bhatia established a prima facie case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kalsi v. New York City Transit Authority
...a more than de minimis impact on coworkers with a more than de minimis cost to the employer. See, e.g., Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 734 F.2d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1984) ("An employer may prove that an employee's proposal would involve undue hardship by showing that either its impact on c......
-
Finnie v. Lee Cnty.
...527 F.2d 515, 521 (6th Cir.1975); see also, e.g., EEOC v. Kelly Services, Inc., 598 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir.2010); Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 734 F.2d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir.1984); Kalsi v. New York City Transit Auth., 62 F.Supp.2d 745 (E.D.N.Y.1998), aff'd mem.,189 F.3d 461 (2d Cir.1999). Thi......
-
Finnie v. Lee Cnty., : 1:10cv64-A-S
...F.2d 515, 521 (6th Cir.1975); see also, e.g., EEOC v. Kelley Services, Inc., 598 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2010); Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 734 F.2d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1984); Kalsi v. New York City Transit Auth., 62 F.Supp.2d 745 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), aff'd mem., 189 F.3d 461 (2d Cir. 1999). T......
-
Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co., Inc.
...relies concern religious accommodation and grooming policies because of safety or sanitation issues. In Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 734 F.2d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1984), there was a no beard policy for employees who could be exposed to toxic gas and thus need an airtight seal on safety m......
-
Employment Law Commentary, November 2014
...of an employee will have an adverse impact on other employees will be permitted to deny the accommodation. In Bhatia v. Chevron USA, Inc., 734 F2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1984), an employee who was of the Sikh faith requested an exception from a policy requiring him to wear a respirator while expose......
-
Discrimination based on national origin, religion, and other grounds
...so long as such practices or conditions are necessary to the normal operation of the business. See Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc ., 734 F.2d 1382, 1383 (9th Cir. 1984) (the NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, ETC. DISCRIMINATION 24-55 Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grou......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...so long as such practices or conditions are necessary to the normal operation of the business. See Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc ., 734 F.2d 1382, 1383 (9th Cir. 1984) (the employer’s prohibition of facial hair conflicted with a Sikh religious belief against shaving body hair, but such proh......
-
Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
...so long as such practices or conditions are necessary to the normal operation of the business. See Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc ., 734 F.2d 1382, 1383 (9th Cir. 1984) (the employer’s prohibition of facial hair conflicted with a Sikh religious belief against shaving body hair, but such proh......
-
Employment
...impose undue hardship. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, §7293.3. Wearing beards can be a protected practice. Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. , 734 F.2d 1382, 1383 (9th Cir. 1984) (employee was member of Sikh religion which proscribes cutting or shaving of any body hair). But employers can insist on c......