EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P.
N/A (Court of Appeals decision details not provided in text) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employer is not required to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practices if doing so would impose more than a de minimis (slight) burden on the conduct of the employer's business or shift the burden of accommodation onto other employees.
Facts:
- The Walmart store in Hayward, Wisconsin, operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with peak tourism season from late May to late August.
- Walmart utilizes eight full-time assistant managers who rotate through various schedules and departments to ensure comprehensive experience.
- In April 2016, Walmart offered Edward Hedican a job as one of eight full-time assistant managers.
- After receiving the offer, Hedican disclosed that as a Seventh-day Adventist, he cannot work between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.
- Lori Ahern, the store’s human resources manager, assessed potential accommodations for Hedican and concluded that they would either require other assistant managers to work additional Friday night and Saturday shifts or disrupt the store's rotation system.
- Walmart raised with Hedican the possibility of applying for an hourly management position, which would not be subject to the assistant manager rotation schedule, but Hedican declined, stating he was not interested.
- Hedican wanted to be an assistant manager and nothing less.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Hedican filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC decided to prosecute a failure-to-accommodate suit on its own behalf against Walmart Stores East, L.P., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
- Walmart moved for summary judgment in the District Court.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Walmart, ruling that an hourly management job would have been a reasonable accommodation and that interference with the store’s rotation system would exceed a slight burden.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Title VII require an employer to accommodate a prospective employee's religious practice (inability to work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) when the proposed accommodations would require other employees to take on additional undesirable shifts or would disrupt the employer's established manager rotation system, thereby imposing more than a slight burden on the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - easterbrook, circuit judge
No, Title VII does not require an employer to accommodate a prospective employee's religious practice if doing so would impose more than a slight burden on the employer or shift the burden of accommodation to other employees. The court reaffirmed that the "undue hardship" standard established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), means an employer is not required to bear more than a 'de minimis' (or slight) cost. Walmart’s offer for Hedican to apply for an hourly management position, though declined, could have been a reasonable accommodation. The proposed accommodations of shift-trading or permanently assigning Hedican to a non-weekend shift would either improperly thrust the burden of accommodation onto other workers, which Hardison rejected, or significantly disrupt Walmart’s legitimate manager rotation system, which is designed to ensure all assistant managers gain experience in every department and would pose more than a slight burden, especially in cases of staff shortages due to illness or vacation. The court acknowledged criticisms of the Hardison standard but stated it is bound to apply existing Supreme Court precedent.
Dissenting - rovner, circuit judge
Yes, there is a question of fact as to whether Walmart did enough to explore ways of accommodating Hedican’s religion, and the case should be reversed and remanded for trial. The dissent argued that Walmart's HR manager, Lori Ahern, failed to consult with the other assistant managers regarding the feasibility of voluntary shift-trades. Given Hedican’s willingness to work disproportionately during non-Sabbath weekend hours, Ahern could not definitively know if accommodation was possible without undue hardship unless she asked the other managers. The dissent contended that traditional business practices do not negate the duty to reasonably accommodate, requiring employers to look at matters with "fresh eyes." Furthermore, merely inviting Hedican to apply for an "ostensibly superior" different position (hourly supervisor instead of assistant manager) for which he was already qualified, without clear communication about the process, may not constitute a meaningful accommodation sufficient to warrant summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case strongly reiterates the Hardison 'de minimis' undue hardship standard for religious accommodation under Title VII within the Seventh Circuit, emphasizing that shifting accommodation burdens to co-workers or significantly disrupting legitimate business practices constitutes undue hardship. It illustrates the practical challenges employers face in 24/7 operations with limited staff, affirming that employer duties do not extend to hiring extra staff or operating short-handed for religious accommodation. The dissenting opinion, however, highlights a crucial area of dispute concerning the employer's proactive duty to explore accommodations, suggesting that a lack of direct consultation with affected employees could be a basis for challenging summary judgment.
