567 F. App'x 681
11th Cir.2014Background
- Garrett and Travis Telfair, African-American Jehovah’s Witnesses, worked part-time as FedEx couriers in Palm Beach and objected to redeployment that required Saturday work.
- FedEx’s redeployment policy allowed affected employees to select other positions by seniority or take 90 days unpaid leave (failure to obtain another position after 90 days resulted in voluntary resignation).
- FedEx refused the Telfairs’ request to keep Saturdays off as couriers but offered Monday–Friday handler positions that paid less; the Telfairs declined and were placed on 90-day leaves, later deemed to have resigned.
- At least 56 part-time positions (courier and handler) were open regionally during the leave period; the Telfairs did not apply for other positions.
- The Telfairs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Florida Civil Rights Act claims for race and religious discrimination/failure to accommodate; the district court granted summary judgment for FedEx on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FedEx failed to reasonably accommodate the Telfairs’ bona fide religious objection to Saturday work | Telfairs: accommodations were unreasonable because offered alternatives reduced pay, lengthened commutes, hurt promotion prospects, and risked seniority loss | FedEx: offered reasonable accommodations — handler positions (Mon–Fri) and 90-day leave plus extensions; not required to provide plaintiff’s preferred accommodation | Court: FedEx’s offers were reasonable as a matter of law; summary judgment for FedEx affirmed |
| Whether Telfairs made out prima facie religious-accommodation claim under FCRA | Telfairs: they had bona fide religious beliefs, informed employer, and suffered adverse employment action | FedEx: disputed bona fide conflict and argued it had accommodated them reasonably | Court: assumed prima facie elements could be met for purposes of analysis but held employer met burden by offering reasonable accommodation |
| Whether employer must prove undue hardship to reject alternative accommodations proposed by employee | Telfairs: argued employer should have investigated feasibility of their proposed accommodations | FedEx: employer need not provide employee’s preferred accommodation or prove undue hardship from employee’s alternatives | Court: employer not required to accept employee’s preferred accommodations or show undue hardship for those alternatives; employee must make good-faith effort to use offered accommodation |
| Whether factual disputes (pay cut, commute, promotion, seniority) precluded summary judgment | Telfairs: these consequences made offers unreasonable and raised triable issues | FedEx: Telfairs provided little or no record evidence (and did not apply for other positions) to support those claims | Court: Telfairs’ assertions were speculative and unsupported; no genuine material fact; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. County Comm’n, 446 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standards and viewing facts for nonmoving party)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard)
- Harper v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998) (FCRA construed using Title VII precedent)
- Walden v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 669 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2012) (employer meets accommodation obligation by offering alternative position and assistance; employee must try in good faith)