Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
472 U.S. 703 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that provides employees with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on their chosen Sabbath violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Donald E. Thornton was a manager for Caldor, Inc., a retail store chain in Connecticut.
- Thornton, a Presbyterian, observed Sunday as his Sabbath.
- After Connecticut law changed to allow Sunday retail operations, Caldor began requiring its managers to work every third or fourth Sunday.
- Thornton initially complied but later informed Caldor he would no longer work on Sundays, invoking a state statute that protected an employee's right to observe their Sabbath.
- Caldor offered to transfer Thornton to a management position in a Massachusetts store that was closed on Sundays, or to a non-supervisory position with lower pay in his current store.
- Thornton rejected both offers.
- Caldor then demoted Thornton to a clerical position.
- Two days after the demotion, Thornton resigned from his job.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald E. Thornton filed a grievance with the Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, alleging he was discharged in violation of state law.
- The Board sustained Thornton’s grievance and ordered Caldor, Inc. to reinstate him with backpay.
- Caldor, the employer, appealed to the Superior Court of Connecticut (a trial court), which affirmed the Board's ruling.
- Caldor then appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the state statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- The administrator of Thornton's estate, the petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 a state statute that provides employees with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on their chosen Sabbath violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the Connecticut statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A state law that gives employees an absolute right not to work on their Sabbath has the primary effect of advancing religion. The Court, applying the Lemon test, found that the statute imposes on employers and other employees an absolute duty to conform their business practices to the religious practices of the Sabbath observer. It takes no account of the secular interests or convenience of the employer or other employees, granting religious concerns an automatic preference over all other interests in the workplace. This unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers goes beyond a permissible accommodation and impermissibly advances a particular religious practice.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, the statute has an impermissible effect because it conveys a message of government endorsement of Sabbath observance. The law singles out Sabbath observers for a special and absolute benefit—the right to select a day off—without accommodating other employees' ethical or personal beliefs. An objective observer would perceive this as the state endorsing a particular religious belief to the detriment of those who do not share it. Justice O'Connor distinguished this statute from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is permissible because it requires only 'reasonable' rather than 'absolute' accommodation and applies to all religious beliefs, not just a specific practice.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial limit on the extent to which states can legislate religious accommodations in the private workplace. It clarifies that while accommodation of religion is permissible, a statute that provides an absolute, unqualified preference for religious observance over all secular business and employee interests violates the Establishment Clause. The ruling distinguishes between mandatory, absolute accommodations, which are unconstitutional, and more flexible 'reasonable accommodation' frameworks like Title VII. The case reinforces the principle that the Establishment Clause prevents the government from forcing private parties to subordinate their own legitimate secular interests to another's religious needs.
Unlock the full brief for Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.