908 F.3d 1098
8th Cir.2018Background
- Sure-Ondara, a Seventh-day Adventist registered nurse, received a conditional offer for a CACE Advanced Beginner RN position at North Memorial that required eight-hour night shifts every other weekend under a union contract.
- She first disclosed her Sabbath observance (cannot work sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) during pre-employment paperwork and requested a religious accommodation.
- North Memorial notified her that the union schedule and training requirements made accommodating consistent Friday-night absences infeasible and rescinded the conditional offer; it offered to consider her for other positions.
- Sure-Ondara filed an EEOC charge alleging religious discrimination and retaliation for requesting accommodation; the EEOC sued after a determination it had reasonable cause to believe retaliation occurred.
- The district court granted summary judgment for North Memorial on the retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); the EEOC appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit panel affirmed, holding that merely requesting a religious accommodation does not always constitute "opposition" under the Title VII opposition clause; a disparate-treatment claim under § 2000e-2(a) is the proper remedy when an accommodation is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a request for a religious accommodation qualifies as "opposition" under Title VII § 2000e-3(a) (opposition clause) | Requesting accommodation is protected activity and thus qualifies as opposition that can trigger an anti-retaliation claim | A request is not necessarily opposition; only communication opposing an unlawful practice qualifies—an initial accommodation request does not inherently oppose any practice | The court held: not categorically. A request may be protected activity but is not always "opposition"; here the request did not show opposition, so retaliation claim failed |
| Whether rescinding a conditional job offer after an accommodation request is an adverse action actionable as retaliation | EEOC: rescission was adverse and retaliatory because it followed the accommodation request | North Memorial: rescission was not unlawful retaliation but based on inability to staff the union schedule and training needs; applicant remedy is under § 2000e-2(a) if accommodation unlawfully denied | The court: rescission was not actionable retaliation on this record; applicant’s remedy for denial is a disparate-treatment claim under § 2000e-2(a) |
| Whether Title VII should be read like ADA retaliation precedent (requests = opposition) | EEOC/dissent: ADA cases treat accommodation requests as protected opposition; Title VII’s similar language should be interpreted the same | Majority: statutory contexts differ; Abercrombie limits repackaging disparate-treatment claims as retaliation claims; ADA precedents do not automatically control Title VII analyses | The court: declined to adopt a categorical ADA-based rule; context matters and Title VII does not always convert a request into opposition |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given factual record (pretext) | EEOC: genuine dispute exists—Sure-Ondara said she would "make it work," suggesting North Memorial’s stated reason was pretextual | North Memorial: legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—scheduling and training constraints prevented accommodation | The court: on the legal issue of opposition, summary judgment affirmed; factual disputes relevant to disparate-treatment claims were not resolved in this retaliation appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015) (Title VII prohibits using an applicant’s religious practice as a factor in hiring decisions and recognizes reasonable-accommodation framework)
- Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (expansive interpretation of "oppose" in Title VII’s opposition clause)
- Brannum v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 518 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review and retaliation framework)
- Kirkeberg v. Can. Pac. Ry., 619 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2010) (ADA retaliation precedent treating accommodation requests as protected activity)
- Heisler v. Metro. Council, 339 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2003) (requesting an accommodation under the ADA is protected activity)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)