If the IDHR finds that you are in fact being discriminated against you will have a right to file a complaint directly with the Illinois Human Rights Commission ("IHRC"). The actual procedure is the IDHR sending you a letter stating that they found substantial evidence and you now have 90 days to file your complaint with the IHRC. This is where the actual trial will take place and you will have an opportunity to confront your employer and his witnesses. The trial will take place in front of an administrative law judge and the remedies available to you include, back wages, future wages, money for medical care, lost benefits, attorney fees and money for emotional distress. You can also ask for your job back. All of this puts pressure on the other side and the chances of settlement if you have a decent case are good. Don't let your employer discriminate against you because of your religious beliefs.

The answer for most cases is the IHRC. One major factor in filing with the IHRC is the cost. There is no cost in filing at the IHRC. Additionally, in my opinion the case will work its' way to trial at a faster pace than filing in the local circuit court. The downside in filing at the IHRC is you can't have a jury trial. All cases filed at the IHRC are heard by an administrative law judge. Remember the goal of any case is to get money in your pocket. Having a good negotiator on your side maximizing your settlement is key.

Russell wore a khimar, which is a religious garb which covers her hair, ears, and neck, as required by her religious beliefs. She wore this when she interviewed for the job of security guard so the company was well aware that she wore this daily. The problem started when she reported to her first work assignment wearing her khima and was told to remove it. She refused to do so because her religious beliefs mandated that she wear the religious head covering. She was terminated at that point.

“The 21st century workplace is increasingly diverse and the resolution of this lawsuit should remind all companies of their legal obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious beliefs.”said EEOC District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr.

In this case the worker requested being excused from working on the Christian Sabbath. This doesn't sound like a big deal and the company should have just allowed the man the day off. Instead the company retaliated against him when it scheduled him to work on the Sabbath for 27 out of 28 weeks. Try explaining that one to St. Peter at the gate.

"This settlement ensures that this employee will continue to receive the accommodation he should have been granted to begin with, and that managers and human resource personnel understand heir obligations under the law,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Faye A. Williams.

Premier Well denied that it engaged in any type of discrimination and claims it only settled the case to put the matter behind them. This type of excuse is often used and in my opinion paying $30,000 is more than just putting the case behind them. There must have been more to it than just an allegation.

“Because of the economy, job applicants face many obstacles in finding employment,” EEOC Attorney Faye Williams.

The problem was Douglas County Clerk Barbara Neilson rejected the accommodation, and claimed exempting Slater would impose an undue hardship on clerk’s office staffing and operations. During discovery a memo surfaces that also indicated that Neilson believed the county could be subjected to civil rights lawsuits if she allowed the acoommodation. The Judge did not buy that argument and denied the County's motion for summary judgment and therefore the case was headed for trial. The Judge pointed out that the applications take a very short period of time to process and it was not unrealistic to just call over another clerk to process the applications of same-sex couples.

“So long as the registration is processed in a timely fashion, the registrants have suffered no injury,” Judge Coffin said. “There is no reason to even inform them of Ms. Slater’s religious views or the county’s accommodation of those beliefs.”

Belk terminated Jones-Abid for refusing to wear the apparel. It would not have been too large a burden on the company to allow her to not wear the Santa hat and apron. The company must respect a person's religious beliefs and there was not a legitimate reason for the company to act the way it did. Hopefully in the future, the company will change its policy.

"No employee should be forced to choose between her faith and her job,” said EEOC attorney Lynette A. Barnes.

The trouble started in May 2009 when Williams quit attending services at the church and in October 2009 she withdrew her membership at the church. Within a very short period of time after withdrawing her membership she was terminated. She is claiming religious discrimination based on her quitting church and then being fired. Prior to being fired, Williams complained to management but nothing was done to correct the hostile work environment.

Williams alleges Sammons said that she was "no longer protected."

Dukes is a member of a Christian denomination called Children of Yisrael which prohibits its members from working on the Sabbath, from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday. The EEOC enforces federal law when it comes to employment issues related to discrimination. In this case, the employer could have made a reasonable accomodation for Dukes and this would have saved the company a great deal of money. The EEOC could have filed an additional charge of retaliation against the company for firing Dukes. Many times EEOC complaints will have multiple counts and allegations.

"Some employers still need to be educated that they are required by law to explore reasonable accommodations to solve situations like this,” said EEOC attorney Lynette A. Barnes.

This type of activity is taking place more and more and there has been a real increase in religious and national origin discrimination. Both of these types of discrimination cause a hostile work environment for employees.

“LAZ Parking worked diligently with the parties in this case to come to a speedy resolution,” said EEOC attorney Robert Dawkins. “Going forward, we believe LAZ Parking is sincerely committed to avoiding these types of problems.”

The three employees complained to management about the discrimination, which included anti-Semitic remarks, but the company failed to take effective remedial measures to stop the offensive conduct. The religious harassment was so intolerable that Gordon was forced to quit, which is considered a constructive discharge.

“Unfortunately, the number of religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC has increased dramatically over the last decade,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. of the EEOC.

Companies need to make reasonable accomodations for workers and if they don't it will cost them time and money. As you can see, in the end the company had to pay and what was the point. Workers have many rights and they need to exercise them when they believe they are the victim of discrimination.

“Employers must respect employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs and carefully consider requests made by employees based on those beliefs,” said EEOC attorney Lynette A. Barnes.

The hospital refused to allow him to wear his hair long, even though the hospital has a policy allowing female employees to wear their hair any length. If that weren't bad enough the hospital retaliated against Gonzalez-Torres by firing him after he complained about the discrimination. There seem to more be men filing discrimination charges with the EEOC. I don't know why the hospital would have a problem letting a man have the same length of hair a women does.

“Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices, and there is no gender distinction for that,” said EEOC Attorney Michael O’Brien.

In March 2008, the 18-year-old female applied for a job stocking merchandise at the “Abercrombie Kids” store at the Great Mall in Milpitas, Calif. In accordance with her religious beliefs, she wore a colorful headscarf to her interview. According to the EEOC, the Abercrombie & Fitch manager asked if she was Muslim and required to wear a head scarf, then marked “not Abercrombie look” on the young woman’s interview form. The EEOC’s suit alleges that Abercrombie & Fitch refused to accommodate the applicant’s religious beliefs by granting an exception to its “Look Policy,” an internal dress code that includes a prohibition against head coverings.

“This was the first job I ever applied for, and I was excited about the idea of working for Abercrombie & Fitch,” said the job applicant. “I was into fashion, and wore skinny jeans and imported scarves that matched my outfits. The interview crushed me because I never imagined anyone in the Bay Area would reject me because of my head scarf. To this day, I can't walk into Abercrombie & Fitch stores. They didn't just miss out on a hard worker, they lost a customer.”

Laurie Young, regional attorney for the EEOC said, “Discrimination because of a person’s religion is illegal and will not be tolerated. While that should be clear by now to all employers, some of them sadly continue to ignore the law."