992 F.3d 656
7th Cir.2021Background
- Walmart’s Hayward, WI store operates 24/7 and staffs eight full‑time assistant managers on a rotating schedule to ensure coverage across departments and shifts.
- In April 2016 Walmart offered Edward Hedican an assistant manager position; Hedican disclosed he is a Seventh‑day Adventist and cannot work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
- HR manager Lori Ahern concluded accommodating Hedican as one of the eight assistant managers would force the other seven to cover extra weekend shifts, require hiring a ninth assistant manager, or disrupt the rotation/specialization system; she instead suggested Hedican apply for an hourly supervisory position (not on the assistant‑manager rotation); Hedican declined.
- The EEOC sued for failure to reasonably accommodate under Title VII; the district court granted summary judgment to Walmart, finding the alternative suggested was reasonable and that any accommodation as an assistant manager would cause more than a slight burden under Trans World Airlines v. Hardison.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying Hardison’s “undue hardship = more than de minimis cost” standard and holding Title VII does not require imposing scheduling burdens on other employees; Judge Rovner dissented, arguing a triable factual issue existed about Walmart’s efforts to explore accommodations and the meaningfulness of the offer to apply for a different job.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walmart reasonably accommodated Hedican’s Sabbath observance by offering an opportunity to apply for an hourly supervisory position | The EEOC/Hedican: the offer to apply for a different, lower‑paid position was not a meaningful accommodation of his request to be an assistant manager with Sabbath off | Walmart: offering the hourly managerial track (and informing how to apply) satisfied the accommodation duty; Hedican declined the alternative | Court: No material difference for summary judgment — Hedican declined; alternative sufficed and Walmart prevailed |
| Whether an accommodation that preserves Hedican as one of eight assistant managers would impose an "undue hardship" under Title VII | EEOC: Walmart could adjust schedules (shift trades, permanent 4‑day slot without Fri‑Sat) to accommodate without undue hardship | Walmart: such adjustments would force other managers to take extra weekend shifts, disrupt rotation and cross‑training, or require hiring a ninth assistant — imposing more than a slight burden | Court: Applied Hardison; accommodation would impose more than a de minimis (slight) burden, so undue hardship exists; Walmart prevailed |
| Whether Title VII requires employers to shift burdens onto other employees (e.g., mandate shift trades) to accommodate religious observance | EEOC: employer could rely on shift trading or permanent reassignment to avoid Sabbath conflicts | Walmart: Title VII does not require imposing coworkers’ preferences/schedules to accommodate one employee | Court: Agrees with Walmart; employer need not disturb other employees’ job preferences or force them into extra weekend shifts |
| Whether Walmart adequately investigated accommodations such that summary judgment was appropriate | EEOC / Dissent (Rovner): A factual dispute exists — Ahern did not consult other managers or sufficiently explore voluntary trades; a jury could find Walmart didn’t reasonably investigate | Walmart / Majority: Ahern analyzed scheduling constraints and offered alternatives; no record showing acceptance of hourly option so summary judgment appropriate | Court: Majority found no triable factual issue and affirmed; dissent would remand for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (EEOC can prosecute a failure‑to‑accommodate suit).
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (Title VII undue‑hardship standard: more than de minimis cost constitutes undue hardship).
- State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) (only the Supreme Court may overrule its precedents).
- Wright v. Runyon, 2 F.3d 214 (7th Cir. 1993) (discusses employer accommodation contexts).
- Porter v. Chicago, 700 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2012) (Title VII does not require other employees to take extra weekend shifts).
- Baz v. Walters, 782 F.2d 701 (7th Cir. 1986) (employer need not disturb job preferences of other employees to accommodate religion).
- Opuku‑Boateng v. California, 95 F.3d 1461 (9th Cir. 1996) (informal polling of coworkers insufficient to show shift‑trade infeasibility).
- Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 952 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2020) (concurring opinion urging reconsideration of Hardison’s standard).