Vegetarianism is a religious belief under Title VII according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determination in the case of a vegetarian bus driver who refused to personally distribute coupons for free hamburgers to his passengers. Religion is defined under Title VII as "includ[ing] moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views." Bruce Anderson, the bus driver, adopted a strict vegetarian diet for ethical reasons and eschews all products tested on animals as well. The coupons were to be distributed on four designated dates. Accomodations reportedly suggested by Anderson included assigning him to desk duty on those four dates or providing him with a basket from which customers could take their own coupons. The OCTA reportedly declined to make those accomodations, first suspending and later terminating Anderson.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
San Diego Area Office

Charge Number: 345960598

Bruce Anderson
638 1/2 Center Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627

Charging Party

Orange County Transit Authority
550 S. Main Street
Orange, CA 92613

Respondent


DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the
following determination as to the merits of the subject charge filed
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

All requirement for coverage have been met. Charging Party alleges
that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of religion in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
Specifically, Charging Party asserts that he is a strict vegetarian due to
moral and ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, and that he
sincerely holds these beliefs with the strength of traditional religious
views. Charging Party asserts that he was removed, suspended and
ultimately discharged from his position of bus driver after informing
Respondent of the conflict between his strongly held moral and ethical
beliefs and the work assignment to "... personally hand out coupons
for free Carl's Jr. hamburgers...." Additionally, Charging Party
maintains that Respondent failed to reasonably accommodate him and
terminated his employment claiming that he was insubordinate.

Respondent denies that it discriminated against the Charging Party in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
contends that Charging Party was terminated based solely on his
refusal to perform a management directive.

Examination of the evidence of record evinces that on June 4, 1996,
Charging Party informed Respondent of the conflict between his
strongly held moral and ethical beliefs and the requirement that he
distribute hamburger coupons to passengers entering the bus he
operated. Respondent failed to reasonably accommodate Charging
Party and suspended him without pay on June 4, 1996. On June 7,
1996, after an internal hearing, Charging Party was discharged for
failing to comply with Respondent's directive.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, requires that an
employer reasonably accommodate an employees religious observance
or practice unless there is an undue hardship. The Commission
defines religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what
is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of
traditional religious views. This standard was developed by the United
States Supreme Court in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163
(1965) and Welsh v. United States, 390 U.S. 333 (1970).

In the instant case, Respondent failed to make any effort to reasonably
accommodate Charging Party and raises no undue hardship defense.
Consequently, I find Respondent discriminated against Charging
Party because of his strongly held moral and ethical beliefs by failing
to accommodate him. Moreover, Respondent violated Section 703 (a)
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by
suspending and discharging Charging Party.

Additionally, Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, makes it an unlawful employment practice to
discriminate against any employee because he has opposed any
practice made unlawful by the statute. I find sufficient evidence to
believe that Charging Party was discharged because he opposed
Respondent's unlawful refusal to accommodate him.

Section 706(b) of Title VII requires that if the Commission determines
that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, it shall
endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlawful employment practices by
informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Having
determined that there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred,
the Commission now invites the parties to Join with it in a collective
effort toward a just resolution of this matter. A representative of this
office will be in contact with each party in the near future to be in the
conciliation process. Disclosure to information obtained by the
Commission during the conciliation process will be made in
accordance with Section 706(b) of Title VII and Section 1601.26 of
the Commission's Procedural Regulations. When the Respondent
declines to enter into settlement discussions, or when the
Commission's representative for any other reason, is unable to secure
a settlement acceptable to the office Director, the Director shall so
inform the parties in writing and advise them of the court enforcement
alternative available to the Charging Party, aggrieved persons, and the
Commission.

8/20/96
Date

on Behalf of the Commission:

/s/
Patrick Matarazza, Director
San Diego Area Office