Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Second Circuit Rejects Appeal of Employee Terminated for Refusal to Attend LGBTQ Bias Sensitivity Training
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 20, 2023
Key Contacts
Back
In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautaiqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, No. 22-547 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the claim of a terminated employee that he was unlawfully discriminated against based on religion when he refused to attend mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination and bias training. The district court found that the termination was not because of the employee’s religion but rather for repeatedly refusing to attend mandatory employee training sessions. Plaintiff sought reinstatement, back pay and $10 Million in damages.
Background
Zdunski worked at the BOCES central business office in Fredonia, New York for approximately seven years, earning an annual salary of $32,000. After another employee advised the employer that they were undergoing transition surgery, the employer, in keeping with requirements under the Dignity for All Students Act (“DASA”), required all employees to attend LGBTQ anti-bias and sensitivity training. Zdunski advised the employer that the teaching at the training would contradict his religious beliefs as a “devout Catholic” and requested an accommodation exempting him from the training. Zdunski did not attend the training. Thereafter, he received a memo advising him that he was required to attend the mandatory training in May 2018. He again asked the objective of the training and asked for an accommodation. He did not attend the training. Zdunski was then given a counseling memo advising him that he had to attend the mandatory training the next day or be subject to discipline up to and including termination. He did not attend. Shortly thereafter, Zdunski received a termination notice.
The Action
After his termination, Zdunski filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”) which was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The NYSDHR issued a determination of No Probable Cause dismissing the complaint which was adopted by the EEOC. Zdunski then filed in the United States District Court alleging that the training was “aimed at changing his religious beliefs about gender and sexuality,” and that attending the training “would have caused him to violate the religious teachings to which he adheres.”
The district court found in favor of the employer holding that the plaintiff’s “unsupported assumption that Defendants believe him to be bigoted due to his religious beliefs is insufficient for support an inference of discrimination.” Additionally, the district court held that “the evidence in the record supported Defendants’ position that his termination was due to repeatedly refusing to attend a mandatory employee training.” In finding that the plaintiff did not point to any evidence that he was treated differently from other employees who refused to attend the training, the district court also found that Zdunski failed to provide any evidence of intent or malice on the part of the employer.
The Second Circuit upheld the district court’s decision finding there was not sufficient evidence to support Zdunski’s claims.
Issues for Employers
Over the last several years, there have been several decisions concerning religious freedom and LGBTQ rights. As more legislation comes down the pike, we can expect more of these types of challenges. Here, the employer was not required to give an accommodation as doing so would have caused the employer to be in violation of New York State law requiring them to provide annual anti-discrimination training to all employees.
Employers should consult with employment counsel to ensure that their trainings, policies and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion measures are up-to-date and consistently applied. Zdunski, through counsel, advised that he intends to seek review from the United States Supreme Court on this issue. The Supreme Court however, is expected to hear another case of religious accommodation in the employment sector in Groff v. DeJoy, which is currently scheduled for oral argument on April 18, 2023.
We will continue to monitor and report on the Groff matter as well as any updates in this matter.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Second Circuit Rejects Appeal of Employee Terminated for Refusal to Attend LGBTQ Bias Sensitivity Training
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautaiqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, No. 22-547 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the claim of a terminated employee that he was unlawfully discriminated against based on religion when he refused to attend mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination and bias training. The district court found that the termination was not because of the employee’s religion but rather for repeatedly refusing to attend mandatory employee training sessions. Plaintiff sought reinstatement, back pay and $10 Million in damages.
Background
Zdunski worked at the BOCES central business office in Fredonia, New York for approximately seven years, earning an annual salary of $32,000. After another employee advised the employer that they were undergoing transition surgery, the employer, in keeping with requirements under the Dignity for All Students Act (“DASA”), required all employees to attend LGBTQ anti-bias and sensitivity training. Zdunski advised the employer that the teaching at the training would contradict his religious beliefs as a “devout Catholic” and requested an accommodation exempting him from the training. Zdunski did not attend the training. Thereafter, he received a memo advising him that he was required to attend the mandatory training in May 2018. He again asked the objective of the training and asked for an accommodation. He did not attend the training. Zdunski was then given a counseling memo advising him that he had to attend the mandatory training the next day or be subject to discipline up to and including termination. He did not attend. Shortly thereafter, Zdunski received a termination notice.
The Action
After his termination, Zdunski filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”) which was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The NYSDHR issued a determination of No Probable Cause dismissing the complaint which was adopted by the EEOC. Zdunski then filed in the United States District Court alleging that the training was “aimed at changing his religious beliefs about gender and sexuality,” and that attending the training “would have caused him to violate the religious teachings to which he adheres.”
The district court found in favor of the employer holding that the plaintiff’s “unsupported assumption that Defendants believe him to be bigoted due to his religious beliefs is insufficient for support an inference of discrimination.” Additionally, the district court held that “the evidence in the record supported Defendants’ position that his termination was due to repeatedly refusing to attend a mandatory employee training.” In finding that the plaintiff did not point to any evidence that he was treated differently from other employees who refused to attend the training, the district court also found that Zdunski failed to provide any evidence of intent or malice on the part of the employer.
The Second Circuit upheld the district court’s decision finding there was not sufficient evidence to support Zdunski’s claims.
Issues for Employers
Over the last several years, there have been several decisions concerning religious freedom and LGBTQ rights. As more legislation comes down the pike, we can expect more of these types of challenges. Here, the employer was not required to give an accommodation as doing so would have caused the employer to be in violation of New York State law requiring them to provide annual anti-discrimination training to all employees.
Employers should consult with employment counsel to ensure that their trainings, policies and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion measures are up-to-date and consistently applied. Zdunski, through counsel, advised that he intends to seek review from the United States Supreme Court on this issue. The Supreme Court however, is expected to hear another case of religious accommodation in the employment sector in Groff v. DeJoy, which is currently scheduled for oral argument on April 18, 2023.
We will continue to monitor and report on the Groff matter as well as any updates in this matter.