Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (Employment)

A. Overview: After trial, the district court entered judgment for the employer, and the court of appeals reversed. The majority, per Justice White, reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

B. Affirmative Religious Claims:

1. Accommodations Claim (Title VII): Claim that employer failed to reasonably accommodate request by employee (member of Worldwide Church of God) to be excused from working on his Sabbath. Claim denied.

[This is the section that is unfinished]

a. Employer made reasonable attempts to accommodate employee’s religious beliefs.

b. Accommodations proposed by Court of Appeals all would result in undue hardship for employer.

i) Undue Hardship: Relevant Legal Standard

ii) Specific Suggestions Entail Too Great a Burden

D. Concurring/Dissenting Opinions [numbered list in order presented]

1. Dissenting Opinion (Marshall joined by Brennan)

a. Majority’s Legal Standard Incorrect

i) Inconsistent with Language

  • Accommodations necessarily involve exceptions from general rules; if accommodation can be rejected just because it involves “preferential treatment,” statute provides nothing.
  • “Anything more than de minimus cost” is not ordinary meaning of “undue hardship”

ii) Inconsistent with Congressional Intent

  • Designed to overrule cases with reasoning similar to majority’s and make clear that “unequal treatment” is OK
  • Sponsor was “Saturday Sabbatarian” trying to protect ability to work of others like himself.
  • Sponsor’s amendment unanimously approved by Senate, then adopted by Conference Committee, whose reported was approved by House and Senate.

iii) Bad Policy:

  • “a society that truly values religious pluralism cannot compel adherents of minority religions to make the cruel chice of surrendering their religion or their job.”
  • May cost society more to pay benefits to unemployed than to try to accommodate them on jobs where they are productive.

b. TWA Did Not Meet Burden Even Under Majority’s Standard

i) Other options available besides those considered by the majority

  • Possible there were volunteers to switch shifts; TWA & union steward didn’t try to find
  • TWA could have paid volunteer and passed cost to claimant
  • TWA could transfer claimant back

ii) TWA has burden of showing options were not possible without undue hardship.

  • Majority analysis doesn’t hold TWA to this burden
  • As large employer, TWA ought to have been able to do more than it did without incurring undue hardship
  • Requirements of collective bargaining agreement can’t automatically trump accommodations
  • Can’t contract away statutory duties
  • Maybe OK where no other employee harmed and seniority system maintained

F. Key Issues Raised: #3

Lubetsky v. Applied Card Systems, 296 F. 3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002) (Employment)

A. Overview: Majority opinion by Black, J., affirming summary judgment for defendant employer.

B. Affirmative Religious Claims:

1. Disparate Treatment Claim (Title VII): Claim that job offer rescinded b/c applicant was Orthodox Jew. Summary judgment for defendant affirmed.

a. Prima Facie case re disparate treatment claims for religion needs to include evidence that challenged decision was made by someone aware of plaintiff’s religion.

i) Employer cannot intentionally discriminate based on an individual’s religion without knowing what the religion is.

ii) Prior cases suggest this requirement

  • Prima facie case for accommodations claims includes making employer aware of religious beliefs
  • Cases involving pregnancy and race discrimination have required that decision-makers were aware of relevant status.

b. Appellant filed to make prima facie case b/c he did not present any evidence that decision-maker knew of his religion when decision not to hire was made

i) Evidence in record all to the contrary

  • Interviewer testified she did not tell decision-maker the appellant was Orthodox Jew
  • Decision-maker testified he was unaware of appelant’s religion until EEOC notice filed
  • Decision-maker said he rescinded offer b/c he believed he recalled meeting and disliking appellant

ii)Irrelevant that decision-maker’s recollection of prior meeting is demonstrably incorrect. That his memory was faulty does not establish that he knew of appellant’s religion.

C. Religious Defenses: None

E. Subsequent History: Cert. Denied, 537 U.S. 1106 (2003)

F. Key Issues Raised: Maybe#1 or #2 (indirectly in creating special prima facie case)

Savanna Club Worship Service v. Savanna Club Homeowners’ Ass’n,456 F.Supp.2d 1223 (S.D.Fla. 2005) (Housing)

A. Overview: On cross-motions for summary judgment on undisputed facts, Judge Middlebrooks ruled for the defendant.

B. Affirmative Religious Claims:

1. Disparate Treatment (FHA): Claim that homeowners’ association rule prohibiting all religious services in common areas constituted religious discrimination against group that had been holding services in common areas. Court ruled it was not an FHA violation.

a. No discrimination on the basis of religion

  • No general deprivation of access to common areas
  • Rule banning all religious services in coimmon areas treats all residents and all religions the same.
  • Lack of access to comon areas for relig. services does not make housing in the complex unavailable to people of plaintiffs’ religion; not an FHA violation merely to make living in complex less desirable.

b. Legitimate non-discriminatory reasons & no evidence of pretext.

  • Complaints re Lot of legit. Reasons led to rule
  • Impeding rights of other residents
  • Violations of existing rules
  • Use by non-residents of common areas and parking
  • Nature of common interest communities necessitates limits on rights to protect interests of other residents

2. Failure to Grant Accommodation (FHA): Claim that homeowners’ association required to accommodate group that wished to hold religious services in common areas. Rejected because FHA does not require religious accommodations.

  • No explicit provision (cf. Title VII)
  • Explicitly allows accommodations for “handicap”; suggests no intent re religion

3. Same Claims (Florida FHA): Court says Florida FHA interpreted to conform to federal FHA, so same results.

C. Religious Defenses: None

E. Subsequent History: None

F. Key Issues Raised: #2, #3