Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
February 21, 1996, Argued ; March 6, 1997, 1 Decided
[*1572] ROVNER, Circuit Judge. We consider in this appeal the extent to which an employer must accommodate its employees' religious practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Lyudmila Tomilina and Alina Glukhovsky [**2] were employed by defendant Ilona of Hungary, Inc. ("Ilona") in its Chicago beauty salon, Tomilina as a manicurist and Glukhovsky as a skin care specialist or "esthetician." Tomilina and Glukhovsky are Jewish, and both asked to take the day off without pay on Saturday, September 29, 1990, in order to observe Yom Kippur, a Jewish holy day. Ilona refused their requests and when neither employee appeared for work on Yom Kippur, decided to terminate their employment. Tomilina and Glukhovsky filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission"), which commenced this action in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the Commission on the basis of detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See EEOC v. Ilona of Hungary, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 1111 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The court awarded back pay to Tomilina and Glukhovsky and ordered that Glukhovsky be reinstated. The court also granted the Commission's request for a permanent injunction that, inter alia, prohibits Ilona from engaging in any practice that discriminates on the basis of religion. In this appeal, Ilona [**3] challenges the finding of a Title VII violation as well as certain aspects of the relief afforded below. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
As we said, the district court issued detailed written findings after conducting a six-day bench trial. Our description of the factual background underlying the Commission's claim relies on those findings, but notes, where appropriate, the contrary evidence rejected by the lower court.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
108 F.3d 1569 *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5025 **; 73 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 528
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILONA OF HUNGARY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 92 C 6698. Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Magistrate Judge.
This Opinion Substituted on Grant of Rehearing for Withdrawn Opinion of October 2, 1996, Previously Reported at: 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26012.
Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
district court, backpay, accommodation, salon, terminated, requests, franchise, undue hardship, esthetician, fired, employees, mitigate, credibility, quit, religious, appointments, injunction, damages, injunctive relief, planned, religious belief, colleagues, comparable, sincerity, religion, argues, discriminated, manicurists, observe, reasons
Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Accommodation, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, General Overview, Labor & Employment Law, Religious Discrimination, Discriminatory Employment Practices, Discharges, Discipline & Transfers, Protection of Rights, Federally Assisted Programs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Actionable Discrimination, Burdens of Proof, Burden Shifting, Employee Burdens, Scope & Definitions, Religion Defined, Defenses, Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship, Federal & State Interrelationships, Title VII Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations, Undue Hardship, Employers, Remedies, Affirmative & Equitable Relief, Civil Rights Law, Injunctions, Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Affirmative Defenses, Burdens of Proof, Damages, Mitigation of Damages, Backpay, Appeals, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury