In Photo ID case, security concerns win out over religious beliefs
An employee of Sunoco refused, on religious grounds, to allow his picture for an ID; a judge rules that owing to security considerations, the company does not have to accommodate the employee
In a case that pitted religious beliefs about photographs against the ramped up security concerns following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a federal judge has ruled that an oil refinery had no duty to accommodate a worker who refused on religious grounds to pose for a photo ID.
In her 22-page opinion in Cherry v. Sunoco Inc., U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that a 2002 federal law specifically mandated that all workers in port facilities carry photo ID, and that Sunoco had no power to waive that requirement.
Shannon P. Duffy of the Legal Intelligencer writes that John Cherry’s lawyer, Sandra I. Thompson, argued that Sunoco could have accommodated Cherry by using biometric identification, such as fingerprints or iris scan, which Cherry had offered to pay for at least in part. Sunoco’s lawyers, Daniel V. Johns and Farrah Gold of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, argued, however, that the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Safety Act, along with the Coast Guard regulations that were passed in its wake, simply don’t allow for any exceptions.
Rufe agreed, saying, Sunoco “could not waive this requirement nor could it make any accommodation that would eliminate the same without suffering undue hardship.”
According to court papers, Cherry is a Black Israelite and a member of the Church of the True and Living God who believes that the Second Commandment prohibits him from posing for pictures or photographs and from carrying the same upon his person. Cherry was hired in March 2001 to work at Sunoco’s 1,000-acre, 1,500-employee Philadelphia refinery. At first, Sunoco accommodated his religious beliefs by allowing Cherry to carry an employee ID without a photograph.
Even after the events of 9/11, court records show that Sunoco continued to accommodate Cherry’s refusal to pose for a photograph, but required him to report to security when he came into work to show his badge.
Cherry’s supervisor would sometimes verify his identify if the security guard on duty did not know Cherry.
In 2002 Congress passed the MTSA, and the Coast Guard soon after enacted regulations to implement the new “maritime security regime.”
Sunoco and other port facilities were informed that they were required to be in full compliance with the law by the end of June 2004.
Cherry was told that he would no longer be allowed to carry his non-photo ID and would be required to pose for a photo to keep his job. He refused, was suspended and later fired after losing his appeal of the decision in an arbitration.
He then turned to federal court where he alleged that his firing was the result of religious discrimination and Sunoco’s unwillingness to offer a reasonable accommodation of his beliefs.
Now Rufe has dismissed the suit on summary judgment, finding that Sunoco investigated the possibility of accommodating Cherry’s religious beliefs, but determined that it was not free to ignore the explicit requirement that every worker in a port facility carry photo ID.
Rufe found that when the Coast Guard was asked if the requirement could be waived, it responded in writing that it could not, and that “there is no exception to these minimum standards, nor any allowance for accommodation.”
