No. A company's only job is to offer one reasonable solution. It doesn't have to prove the employee's ideas are a hardship. But, the school's offer of unpaid leave might not be 'reasonable' if it gives paid personal days for all sorts of non-religious reasons but specifically bans using them for religious ones. That could be discrimination. The case was sent back to a lower court to find out how the school actually lets teachers use those personal days.

No, but the court's reasoning is wrong. If the company's solution still harms the employee (like losing pay), the company should have to keep working with the employee to find a better solution, as long as it's not a major hardship. Just offering unpaid leave isn't always enough to solve the problem.

No, and we don't need another trial. The school board should win now. The rules didn't single out religion; they just said you can't use 'personal days' for things that already have their own leave category. Losing a day's pay for a day you don't work isn't religious discrimination, it's just what happens when you take an unexcused day off for any reason.

No, the company doesn't have to agree to the employee's preferred way. We think the school's offer of unpaid time off is generally fair. It lets Mr. Philbrook follow his religion fully, he just doesn't get paid for extra days off. This is usually a fair solution, unless the school is treating religious days off differently from other types of days off on purpose. We're sending the case back to check if the school has been unfair in how it lets people use personal days.

I mostly agree, but I think if the school's solution doesn't fully solve the problem, they should still have to consider Mr. Philbrook's ideas if they're reasonable and don't cause too much trouble for the school. The guidelines from the government agency that handles these issues support this idea, and I think we should pay more attention to those guidelines.

I agree with part of what the main opinion says, but I don't think we need to send the case back for more investigation. I believe it's clear that Mr. Philbrook's complaints aren't valid. He's not being treated unfairly because of his religion; he's just unhappy that he doesn't get more special treatment for his religious needs than other teachers get for their personal needs. Also, having to make up work after unpaid time off isn't a religious issue - it's the same for anyone who takes unpaid time off for any reason.

No. An employer meets its obligation under § 701(j) of Title VII when it demonstrates that it has offered a reasonable accommodation to the employee. The statute does not require an employer to accept an employee's preferred accommodation, even if it would not cause an undue hardship. Once an employer offers a reasonable accommodation, the statutory inquiry ends. However, providing unpaid leave for religious observance is not a reasonable accommodation if paid leave is provided for all other secular purposes. Because the record was unclear on how the 'necessary personal business' leave was administered in practice, the case must be remanded to determine if the Board's policy was discriminatory by allowing paid leave for a wide range of secular reasons while prohibiting it for religious ones.

No. While agreeing with the remand, the majority's primary holding is incorrect because an employer's duty to accommodate should be continuous. If the accommodation offered by the employer does not completely resolve the employee's conflict (such as the loss of pay from unpaid leave), the employer remains obligated to consider any other reasonable proposals submitted by the employee that do not cause undue hardship. An offer of unpaid leave does not end the inquiry if a more effective resolution is available without causing undue hardship to the employer.

No. While agreeing with the majority's rejection of the Court of Appeals' rule, the case should be reversed outright without a remand. The record is sufficient to conclude that Philbrook cannot prevail. The school board's leave policy does not create a conflict cognizable under Title VII; it provides specific paid leave for religious observance and denies the use of personal leave for any purpose already covered by another leave category, not just religion. The inconvenience of taking unpaid leave is a generic consequence of being absent from work, not a form of religious discrimination, so the duty to accommodate was never triggered.

No. We hold that an employer has met its obligation under § 701(j) when it demonstrates that it has offered a reasonable accommodation to the employee. The statute does not require an employer to choose any particular reasonable accommodation, nor does it require the employer to show that each of the employee's alternative accommodations would result in undue hardship. Once the employer has reasonably accommodated the employee's religious needs, the statutory inquiry is at an end. The provision of unpaid leave eliminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices by allowing the individual to observe fully religious holy days and requires him only to give up compensation for a day that he did not in fact work. This is generally a reasonable accommodation, absent evidence of discriminatory intent. However, the case is remanded for factual findings on the administration of the personal business leave provisions to determine if they have been applied in a discriminatory manner.

I agree that if the school board provides paid leave for all purposes except religious ones, its accommodation would be unreasonable. However, I believe that even if personal leave is restricted to specific secular uses, the question remains whether the school board could further reasonably accommodate Philbrook's need for additional religious leave without undue hardship. The employer should have a continuing duty to consider reasonable proposals from the employee if the initial accommodation does not fully resolve the conflict. The EEOC guidelines support this interpretation, and the Court should give them more weight.

I concur in part and dissent in part. While I agree with rejecting the Court of Appeals' rationale, I would simply reverse its judgment without remanding. The record clearly shows that Philbrook cannot prevail on either of his claims. His argument about the inadequacy of the six total days of leave for his religious needs is a grievance against equal treatment, not unequal treatment. His claim about having to work without pay to make up for religious absences discloses no conflict between his religion and employment, as this applies to any unpaid absence. The duty to accommodate never arose because there was no statutory conflict between Philbrook's religion and his work duties.

Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot