Cold fusion confusion the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's incredible interpretation of religion in LaViolette v. Daley

Is cold fusion (1) the equivalent of Catholicism? Is believing in extraterrestrials the same as being an Episcopalian? In the recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision of LaViolette v. Daley, (2) the EEOC held that the complainant's unusual beliefs regarding cold fusion, cryptic messages from extraterrestrials, and other "scientific" beliefs are entitled to the same protection in the workplace from discrimination as religious beliefs. (3) This note, by examining the facts of the case, the relevant statutes, agency regulations, and case law, will demonstrate that the EEOC's ruling has impermissibly expanded the definition of "religion" to the point that it has created a new cause of actionable discrimination--something the EEOC has neither the power nor the authority to do.

Genesis

Paul LaViolette had been a patent examiner with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) until he was fired on 9 April 1999. (4) On 28 June 1999, LaViolette filed a formal complaint of discrimination, alleging that the PTO fired and refused to rehire him based upon his "unconventional beliefs about cold fusion and other technologies." (5) The Department of Commerce, of which the PTO is part, dismissed LaViolette's complaint on 13 September 1999, for failure to state a claim within the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (6)

LaViolette appealed the dismissal, arguing that "`discrimination against a person on account of his beliefs is the essence of discrimination on the basis of religion.' Therefore, he contends, his scientific beliefs in cold fusion are protected." (7) The EEOC reversed the agency's dismissal of his complaint and remanded it for further processing. (8) While an agency must dismiss a complaint of discrimination that fails to state a claim, (9) here the EEOC held:

   In determining which beliefs are protected under Title VII, the Supreme
   Court has held that the test is whether the belief professed is sincerely
   held and whether it is, in his own scheme of things, religious....
   Moreover, in defining religious beliefs, our guidelines note that "the fact
   that no religious group espouses such beliefs ... will not determine
   whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee ...

   In the instant case, complainant argues that his unconventional beliefs
   about cold fusion and other technologies should be viewed as a religion and
   therefore protected. Complainant claims he was terminated and denied the
   opportunity to be rehired because of religion, which embodies his cold
   fusion beliefs. Therefore, under the applicable law noted above, we find
   that the agency improperly dismissed complainant's claim of discrimination
   for failure to state a claim. (10)

While the EEOC subsequently stated that it did not determine the validity of LaViolette's complaint, (11) by allowing the case to go forward, it has extended Title VII protection to scientific beliefs. In doing so, the EEOC not only misapplied its own regulations, but also ignored the statutes and case law that govern it and exceeded its statutory mandate as well.

Numbers

The ultimate question presented by LaViolette's complaint is whether his scientific beliefs deserve the same protection from discrimination as another's religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (12) provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin." (13) It defines religion to "include all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." (14) Title VII has been interpreted "to protect against requirements of religious conformity and as such protects those who refuse to hold, as well as those who hold, specific religious beliefs." (15)

The EEOC, responsible for enforcing Title VII, (16) is required by its own regulations to adopt Title VII's definition of religion. (17) As Title VII's definition of religion is circular (religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice), (18) the EEOC's regulation further adds that

   [i]n most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at
   issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the
   Commission will define 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 in
   United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States,
   398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard
   in its decisions. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or
   the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to
   belong may not accept such a belief will not determine whether the belief
   is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase
   "religious practice" as used in these Guidelines includes both religious
   observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).
   (19)