Kimberly Crider v. University of Tennessee
492 F. App'x 609
6th Cir.2012Background
- Crider, a Seventh-Day Adventist, was hired May 2008 as Programs Abroad Coordinator at UTK, with duties including carrying an emergency phone on weekends.
- The emergency phone rotation required coordinators to stay in Knoxville and be available for emergencies, including weekends.
- Crider informed UTK early on of religious conflict with working Friday sundown to Saturday sundown; accommodations were discussed with Office of Equity and Diversity.
- Crider proposed a voluntary shift-exchange schedule; others refused to permanently assume weekend duty, and UTK rejected other accommodation ideas (e.g., monitoring by others, forwarding calls to campus police).
- Crider was terminated on June 20, 2008; district court granted UTK summary judgment; the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for factual questions about reasonableness and undue hardship.
- The center of dispute is whether UTK could reasonably accommodate Crider without undue hardship, considering co-worker impact and the essential nature of site visits and emergency duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was UTK's accommodation reasonable without undue hardship? | Crider argues UTK could reasonably accommodate without undue burden. | UTK argues accommodation would impose undue burden on operations and coworkers. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Did coworkers' burden establish undue hardship? | Co-worker resistance and Meador's threat to quit show undue burden is not minimal. | Co-worker objections show potential impact; Hardison limits accommodations to not disrupt business. | Genuine issue as to whether burden constitutes undue hardship. |
| Did UTK frustrate Crider's accommodation efforts? | UTK discouraged or obstructed shift-swaps and accommodation proposals. | UTK explored multiple options and Crider remained inflexible. | Material facts exist about whether accommodation efforts were frustrated. |
| How do Hardison and Draper govern in this context? | Employer cannot impose undue hardship or force others to bear shifts solely due to religion. | Neutral employment decisions may have unavoidable effects; Hardison/Draper permit consideration of co-worker impact. | Hardison/Draper applied to show undue hardship; not dispositive—facts remain in dispute. |
| Is there a genuine dispute about the overall reasonableness of the accommodation? | UTK failed to offer a feasible accommodation without undue hardship and acted inflexibly. | UTK offered several accommodations and Crider was uncooperative. | Yes; genuine disputes preclude summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Draper v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 527 F.2d 515 (6th Cir. 1975) (reasonableness of accommodation depends on impact on employer; cooperation required)
- Hardison, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court 1977) (undue hardship based on impact on coworkers and business; cannot force costly accommodations)
- Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1987) (employee must cooperate; not all requests are reasonable accommodations)
- McGuire v. General Motors Corp., 956 F.2d 607 (6th Cir. 1992) (summary judgment inappropriate when dispute over employer blocking accommodation)
- Virts v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 285 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2002) (undue hardship can arise from disruption to operations due to accommodation)
- Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 797 F.2d 129 (3d Cir. 1986) (Saturday/off-day accommodations considered in context of broader religious protections)