Opinion ID: 2998715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Affinity Group Status

Text: Employer-sponsored diversity initiatives have become increasingly popular. “[M]ajor American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003) (citing amici briefs submitted by leading American corporations). In an effort to, among other things, support employees of diverse backgrounds, some employers officially recognize employee groups organized on the basis of aspects of social identity. Some of these companies, including Intel (which recognizes groups including the Intel Baha’i Group, Intel Bible-Based Christian Network, Intel Jewish Community, and Intel Muslim Employee Group)1 and Texas Instruments (the company supports diversity initiatives including the Christian Values Initiative and Muslim Initiative)2 recognize groups that, although open to both members and nonmembers of the religion, are organized on the basis of a religious affinity. General Motors, although it has an Affinity Group program to support employee-organized groups organized around aspects of social identity, declines to sanction any group that promotes a religious position. As a result, when Moranski sought Affinity Group status for the “GM Christian Employee Network,” General Motors denied his request. Moranski contends that this denial constituted unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of his Christian religion, in violation of Title VII. 1 http://www.intel.com/jobs/diversity/people (last visited December 20, 2005). 2 http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/citizen/diversity/ initiatives.shtml (last visited December 20, 2005). 6 No. 05-1803 Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). The statute makes it unlawful for an employer “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). It is well-established that “[t]he central question in any employment-discrimination case is whether the employer would have taken the same action had the employee been of a different race (age, sex, religion, national origin, etc.) and everything else had remained the same.” Carson v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 82 F.3d 157, 158 (7th Cir. 1996). Here, the allegations in Moranski’s complaint make clear that General Motors would have taken the same action had he possessed a different religious position. Although General Motors currently recognizes nine Affinity Groups, Moranski acknowledges that the company has never approved an Affinity Group based on any other religion, nor would the Guidelines allow it to do so. Instead, Moranski argues that General Motors’s refusal to grant Affinity Group status to any group that promotes or advocates a religious position means that it treats “nonreligious” employees more favorably than religious employees. General Motors, however, has never recognized an Affinity Group that promotes or advocates any religious position, even one of religious indifference or opposition to religion. Nor, as Moranski acknowledges, would the Guidelines allow it to do so. The Guidelines preclude recognition of Affinity Groups based on any religious “position,” including agnosticism, atheism, and secular humanism. The Guidelines also prohibit General Motors from recognizing, in Moranski’s terms, a group organized on the basis of “nonreligion.” Simply stated, General Motors’s Affinity Group policy treats all religious positions alike–it excludes them all from serving as the basis of a company-recognized No. 05-1803 7 Affinity Group. The company’s decision to treat all religious positions alike in its Affinity Group program does not constitute impermissible “discrimination” under Title VII. It is true, as Moranski points out, that General Motors does recognize Affinity Groups based on race, color, sex, and national origin, the other categories protected by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). It does not follow, however, that the company’s decision to exclude all groups formed on the basis of religious positions violates Title VII. Unsurprisingly, Moranski does not point us to any authority for his proposition that a court should use cross-categorical comparisons when evaluating Title VII claims. His logic would mean that a company would violate Title VII if it recognized an Affinity Group on the basis of religion but not sex, or granted status to a group on the basis of sex but not to one based on ethnicity. Yet even Moranski concedes Title VII law does not stretch this far, replying instead that a company must allow recognition of a group organized on the basis of whatever an employee deems his or her “main identifying characteristic.” This argument does not help Moranski. It has no basis in Title VII law, nor do the Affinity Group Guidelines make any reference to an employee’s “main identifying characteristic.” Rather than looking to what an employee might deem his or her “main identifying characteristic,” we return again to the language of Title VII, which makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). As we have said before, this statutory text means that the “touchstone of Title VII is, of course, discrimination or disparate treatment.” Holman, 211 F.3d at 402. In Holman, we held a Title VII claim failed where the employer treated men and women equally, explaining: 8 No. 05-1803 Because Title VII is premised on eliminating discrimination, inappropriate conduct that is inflicted on both sexes, or that is inflicted regardless of sex, is outside the statute’s ambit . . . . We do not think, however, that it is anomalous for a Title VII remedy to be precluded when both sexes are treated badly. Title VII is predicated on discrimination. Given this premise, requiring disparate treatment is consistent with the statute’s purpose of preventing such treatment. . . . Id. See also McKenzie v. Milwaukee County, 381 F.3d 619, 626 (7th Cir. 2004) (failure of female officer to identify similarly situated male officer defeated claim); Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 899 (7th Cir. 2003) (reviewing Title VII claim by comparing treatment of African American and Caucasian employees); Guardian Indus. Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 49 F.3d 317, 320 (7th Cir. 1995) (“age discrimination means treating persons 40 and over differently from those who are younger”). Similarly here, Moranski’s complaint contains allegations making clear that General Motors refuses to grant Affinity Group status to any group on the basis of any position with respect to religion. It makes no difference that, as Moranski stressed, all employees have a race or gender, but not all might identify with a religion. The Affinity Group Guidelines treat employees with all religious positions identically: any employee with any religious position may join any of the recognized Affinity Groups, but the company will not recognize as an Affinity Group a group organized on the basis of a religious position. This is not discrimination “because of” religion, and the district court properly granted General Motors’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a No. 05-1803 9 claim upon which relief could be granted.3 Our conclusion on this point makes it unnecessary for us to consider the other arguments General Motors raised in support of the district court’s decision.