In today’s News and Commentary, an employee sues for a fossil-fuel-free 401(k) plan as a religious accommodation, DHS submits a proposed rule eliminating the 60-day grace period for H-1B workers, and the Eighth Circuit dismisses a constitutional challenge to the FMSHRC for failing to follow the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On Tuesday, a Christian scientist filed suit in the Western District of New York against his employer, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., alleging that he has been unlawfully forced to compromise his religious values in order to receive the full benefits of his employment. Plaintiff Dr. Andrew Hartley “sincerely holds the belief that investing his money in fossil fuels is morally wrong and in violation of his religious convictions” and is seeking to compel Thermo Fisher to provide a fossil-fuel-free investment option in its 401(k) plan menu as a reasonable religious accommodation. Dr. Hartley is basing his claim on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York State Human Rights Law. The complaint marks a departure in its reliance on antidiscrimination law rather than the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and is expected to test the bounds of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which made it harder for companies to reject workers’ religious accommodation requests under Title VII.

On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security submitted a proposed rule that would eliminate the 60-day window for H-1B workers to find new employment after a job loss. Since 2017, DHS regulations have provided H-1B and other workers with nonimmigrant status a grace period to find another employer to sponsor or change status before their period of authorized stay expires. The elimination of this rule would create immediate legal consequences for workers affected by layoffs. This is the latest of several changes to the H-1B specialty occupation worker visa scheme, with a final rule released on Friday requiring covered employers to submit a $4,000 biometric screening fee for applications for extensions of stay and a $4,500 fee for intracompany transfers. Previously, covered employers only paid biometric screening fees for initial approvals of status or changes of employer.

On Friday, the Eighth Circuit dismissed American Tripoli’s petition to throw out the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission’s order dismissing American Tripoli’s challenging of penalties it received from the Mine Safety and Health Administration for allegedly firing one of its workers for raising safety concerns. American Tripoli largely relied on the US Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy to argue that FMSHRC’s use of in-house Administrative Law Judges violates the separation of powers under the Constitution. FMSHRC is the independent adjudicative body that administers trials and appeals of disputes relating to the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, while MSHA is the agency that issues safety fines. American Tripoli was found to have violated Section 105(c) of the Mine Act for firing a miner representative less than one week after he participated in a MSHA inspection that resulted in the issuance of a Section 104(b) withdrawal order. American Tripoli filed a motion to cease and desist while review proceedings were pending and included fabricated cases in its briefing, resulting in the FMSHRC vacating the directions for review and dismissing the proceeding. The Eighth Circuit dismissed American Tripoli’s petition for review because it failed to properly designate the ALJ’s decision as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a)(2)(C), did not mention or refer to any merits-related issues, and submitted no contemporaneous filings fairly demonstrating its intent to seek review of the ALJ’s merits decision.