California Employment Law Blog

Understanding Religious Discrimination Under Title VII and FEHA: Lessons from Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton

Posted by Timothy B. Del Castillo | May 21, 2024 | 0 Comments

Religious discrimination in employment is prohibited under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Title VII, a federal law, protects employees from discrimination based on religion, among other protected characteristics. It mandates that employers cannot make employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, or promoting, based on an individual's religion. Similarly, FEHA provides state-level protections in California.

Both laws follow the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for addressing discrimination claims. First, an employee must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Then, the employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. Finally, the burden shifts back to the employee to demonstrate that the employer's reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.

In the 2024 case of Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton, the central question was whether Hittle's termination as Fire Chief was motivated by religious discrimination, violating Title VII and FEHA. Ronald Hittle alleged that his termination was due to religious discrimination, specifically for attending the Global Leadership Summit, a religious event.

During his tenure from 2005 to 2011, Hittle faced various allegations of misconduct, including using city time and resources for the event, failing to disclose conflicts of interest, and demonstrating poor leadership. An independent investigation by Trudy Largent supported most of these allegations, leading to his termination. Hittle contended that these allegations were pretextual and that his dismissal was actually rooted in religious bias. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, and Hittle appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, Hittle argued that his attendance at the religious event was used by the City as a pretext for his termination. He claimed that his superiors showed discriminatory animus towards his religious activities, citing derogatory references such as "Christian Coalition" and "church clique." He maintained that the leadership training he attended was the best available option given the City's financial constraints and that his participation was intended to enhance his leadership skills.

The City of Stockton argued that Hittle was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. They cited multiple instances of misconduct, such as misuse of City resources, failure to report time off properly, conflicts of interest, and poor leadership. The City relied on Trudy Largent's investigation findings to justify his termination regardless of his religious beliefs. They emphasized that Hittle's attendance at the Summit on City time and using City resources violated City policies.

On review, the Court of Appeals applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The Court found that Hittle had established a prima facie case of religious discrimination. However, it also found that the City provided several legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Hittle's termination. Hittle needed to demonstrate that these reasons were pretextual. The Court concluded that the comments about a “Christian Coalition” and “church clique” were based on complaints from others and did not show direct discriminatory animus from the decision-makers. Additionally, Hittle's circumstantial evidence was not specific or substantial enough to prove pretext.

Ultimately, the Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. It concluded that the City had provided legitimate reasons for Hittle's termination, which he failed to convincingly argue were pretextual. The evidence did not support a finding that religious discrimination was a motivating factor in his termination.

Employers should ensure that termination decisions are well-documented and based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Conducting thorough, impartial investigations to support these decisions is crucial. Applying policies consistently and objectively, without bias towards protected characteristics like religion, is essential. Careful language should be used when discussing employees' activities. Additionally, training managers on preventing discrimination and handling complaints effectively is vital. Clear communication about the importance of equal treatment and company policies can help mitigate the risk of discrimination claims.

Employees should be aware of their rights under Title VII and FEHA, which protect against religious discrimination and other forms. Keeping detailed records of any discrimination incidents is important. If facing discrimination, employees should seek support from HR departments or legal counsel and know the appropriate channels for reporting and addressing such issues.

About the Author

Timothy B. Del Castillo

Tim Del Castillo is Founding Partner of Castle Law: California Employment Counsel, PC.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment


There is no charge for the initial phone consultation. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.