Harrell v. Donahue
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6621
8th Cir.2011Background
- Harrell, a Seventh-day Adventist, was a junior full-time USPS carrier in Warrensburg, Missouri on a rotating schedule under a seniority-based system.
- USPS scheduling and leave were governed by a national CBA and local MOU; rotating schedules were standard except for the most senior employee who had fixed weekends off.
- Harrell requested a religious accommodation to have every Saturday off, arguing conflict with his beliefs from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
- USPS discussed options (swap days, lateral transfer, or leave) but Harrell rejected options other than every Saturday off; he preferred not to use annual leave or leave without pay.
- Harrell began requesting Saturday leave in summer 2007; most requests were denied, and he stopped working Saturdays starting October 13, 2007, leading to disciplinary suspensions and termination in March 2008.
- Harrell filed a Title VII EEOC complaint and then suit alleging religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and RFRA violation; district court granted summary judgment for USPS on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USPS could accommodate Harrell without undue hardship under Title VII | Harrell, through accommodation, seeks every Saturday off. | Accommodating would violate the CBA/seniority system and cause undue hardship. | Accommodation would cause undue hardship; USPS not required to violate seniority rules. |
| Whether RFRA provides an independent remedy for federal employment discrimination post-Title VII | RFRA permits relief for religious burdens beyond Title VII after exhaustion of remedies. | RFRA does not broaden remedies for federal employment discrimination; Title VII remains exclusive. | RFRA claims barred; Title VII remains the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Gen. Motors Corp. (Brown I), 601 F.2d 956 (8th Cir.1979) (undue hardship framework for accommodations; case relied upon for seniority-system constraints)
- Brown v. Polk County, Iowa (Brown II), 61 F.3d 650 (8th Cir.1995) (case establishing that undue hardship can occur when accommodation imposes on co-workers)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1977) (employer not required to violate seniority systems to accommodate religious beliefs)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (U.S. 2002) (seniority-system considerations and shifts not limited to CBA contexts)
- Balint v. Carson City, Nev., 180 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.1999) (undue hardship and impact on coworkers in accommodations)
- EEOC v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307 (4th Cir.2008) (undue hardship concept includes real imposition on coworkers)
- Francis v. Mineta, 505 F.3d 266 (3d Cir.2007) (RFRA interplay with Title VII; RFRA not broadening remedies for federal employment discrimination)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (U.S. 1990) (Smith decision triggering RFRA response; general applicability of laws without compelling interest)