Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ithaca Industries, Inc.
829 F.2d 519
4th Cir.
1987
Check Treatment

*2 plans. made other On neither did occasion WILKINS, Before HALL and he base his religious grounds. refusal on Judges, ANDERSON, District disciplined He was not on either occasion Judge for the District of South for his refusals. Carolina, sitting by designation. Friday, 16,1984 On March Dean failed to appear for his shift ANDERSON, as Jr., GEORGE scheduled. This ROSS Dis- precipitated absence Judge: warning trict written re- garding Dean’s chronic absenteeism the The EEOC initiated this Ti- action under form Employee of an Relations Report tle Rights VII Civil Act1 behalf provided which that: alleged wrongful Daniel Dean dis- Employee days has been year. out charge resulting from his refusal to work He has been improve told this must if he on his (Sunday). sabbath district court is to remain at Ithaca. entered for the defendant em- Employee poor has attitude ployer, Industries, which (Ithaca). been covered. Finding the decision of the district court erroneous,” “clearly affirm. sign report refused to even after Anderson v. City, Bessemer prolonged supervisor. conference with his (1985). S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d 518 It until March 1984 that Ithaca is a manufacturing textile plant Dean refused work based reli- Gastonia, located North Carolina. There reasons. When reported he to work plants network, were twelve other all Monday, March 1984 he received 2000e-2(a) 1. Title 42 provides: § U.S.C. "religion” aspects term includes all religious It shall be (1) practice, unlawful for an observance and as well — individual, discharge any belief, ... or otherwise to unless an demonstrates against any discriminate individual with added) reasonably (emphasis he is unable to terms, spect conditions, compensation, to his employee’s accommodate to prospective or privileges or employment, (empha- because religious employee’s practice observance added) sis of such individual’s ... hardship without undue conduct of gion— employer’s business. 2000e(j) provides: Title U.S.C. warning Assuming arguendo which read that Dean es written another prima discharge tablished case of part: facie reasons, inquiry the next 1 unex- absences and Employee has 9 ab- did Ithaca demonstrate effort to rea Another unexcused absence. cused sonably termination. observ sence will result practice. ance sign Employee Again, Dean refused *3 Report explanation a full after Relations In an effort to accommodate the reli- These indicate supervisor. facts from his practices and em- of Dean its other career was somewhat employment his that supervisors personnel Ithaca took ployees, impressive. less than following steps: employ the minimum the possible on requested April production work force to maintain to work When reasoning Sundays; attempt he was not fill flatly on skeleton work he refused volunteers; working Sunday for on because first anyone crews with and select ad- discharged rotating his beliefs. ditional workers on a basis with Monday, April safety on additional considerations. Sunday non- policy work was Ithaca’s on implementing policy After Ithaca supervisors first discriminatory. Shift a Hobson’s choice when confronted faced If a sought sufficient work volunteers. uncompromising Dean’s and adamant with recruited on a volunteer could not be force refusal to work on Ithaca could basis, par- supervisor designated the shift totally capitulate either to Dean’s demands selecting Sunday employees. ticular require his took considera- supervisor the into workers replace employee Dean with an work employee not an whether or tion willing reciprocal to make accommodations. previous Sundays, many on how worked compel openly choice This would Ithaca during the week hours had been worked against other discriminate workers. of the qualifications and the uncompromising Dean’s attitude and his particular job. the guarantee no Sunday for a work desire obtaining responsible for Each shift was Nothing they Ithaca into a corner. boxed workers, hence, not Sunday they were do, except unconditionally could surrender from other shifts. recruited demands, suffice. to his would any Dean he was not treated conceded recognized statu- The district court the differently on his from other meaning tory of “reasonable accommoda- shift. corresponding and the burdens. tion” posture of Dean’s refusal to work the term “reason- statute’s use of [T]he Sunday is in his testi- aptly more reflected suggests: cooperation bilateral able” mony at trial: accept- appropriate in the search words, Q. you In other would have the of the needs of able reconciliation job guaranteed your would exigencies of ,employee’s religion and the require Sunday work? Although the employer’s the business. rests A. Yes. burden to accommodate employer, has with willing to also he Dean testified to make a faith duty correlative em- management and his fellow work with through attempt satisfy his needs except Sunday work ployees every issue employer. means offered compromise he and that could Hospital, Diagnostic Center Brener Sunday question. work Cir.1982). F.2d 145-146 de- scenario must Given factual testimony, Throughout Dean his (1) against if cide discriminated way on compromise (2) religion failed Dean because of his offered to work issue. He never religious work his attend if he allowed to would be hard- practice observance without undue judge The district court church services. ship on the of Ithaca’s business. conduct just "he would not found that work record in her previous position with the Sunday, (Transcript at period.” p. sharp contrast, bank. Dean did not 34). By position, possess para. own absolutist a sound work During record. precluded making employment Ithaca, Ithaca from rea- course of his Dean with for his received written repri- sonable accommodation and verbal mands for his coopera- absenteeism and his tion with others. judge’s district court previously This faced Court findings recognize Ithaca’s dissatisfaction Jor- on sabbath conflict. In fusal work performance. Therefore,. with Dean's Bank, dan v. North Carolina National of holding applies to this case with (4th Cir.1977) (Rehearing 565 F.2d 72 greater even force. banc denied), qualified en Rehearing ap- argues interpret EEOC we should “rea- plicant sought sound record sonable accommodation” in However, accordance re-employment the bank. guidelines.2 with their own We decline to precondition employment, to her *4 Jordan adopt such a construction. The Supreme guarantee demanded an unrestricted recently proper Court reaffirmed deference she would to never asked work between regulations to these in Ansonia Board Friday Saturday, sundown and sundown of — Philbrook, Education U.S.-, 107 her Sabbath. The bank could not make 6, 372, S.Ct. fn. 93 L.Ed.2d 305 guarantee and refused to hire Jordan. citing also General Electric Co. v. Gil- judge’s This Court reversed the district bert, 125,141, 401, 410, 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. 50 ligious finding discrimination and stated: (1976). L.Ed.2d pre-requirement Jordan’s on its face was have, course, We of noted that EEOC so scope unlimited absolute in —nev- guidelines properly are accorded less Saturday er to speaks work it—that weight regulations than administrative its own unreasonableness and thus be- by Congress declared to have the force yond accommodation. of law. Jordan, supra, 565 F.2d at 76. suggests EEOC that Ithaca could in circumstances the instant case have compelled other employees shift to provide justification even more for Ithaca’s Dean; they work for could have required response to the conflict than in existed employees to work a double shift and First, Jordan. there is no indication in they could have located workers on a dif Jordan that the bank attempted to accom- ferent shift to his duties. applicant by soliciting modate the pool of stand-by potential volunteers for disagree work We suggested with these alter- Saturday. Ithaca did fact make efforts natives. The is statute not to be construed religious accommodate Dean’s require an employer to discriminate Secondly, Jordan was mere- the conflict against some employees in order others ly anticipated. However, in the instant observe sabbath. Such discrimi- case the natory conflict manifested itself construction into would do violence to very impasse. very problem designed real and immediate it was cor- plant provided Gastonia all of the rect. raw ma- finishing plants.

terial Ithaca’s The con- seen, paramount As we have concern operation tinued plants depended several Congress enacting Title VII was upon steady flow of material from the employ- elimination discrimination in plant. Lastly, Gastonia Jordan ap- ment. In the absence of clear plicant presented employment language legislative history to the 1605.2(c)(1) 2. prac- EEOC pro- religious Guidelines Section accommodate the individual’s vides: justified tices. A refusal to accommodate is prospective employee organization After an employer when an or labor employer organization notifies the or labor hardship can demonstrate that an undue his or her need for a accommoda- would in fact from each available alter- result tion, organization accommodation____ or labor native method of obligation added) an (emphasis readily against will not construe the contrary, we what I believe in.” It’s These require personal an to dis- purely statute to Dean at the views against work, some in or- criminate of his refusal to rather time than to observe their specific der to enable others of adherence to the reflection Airlines, Inc. v. Sabbath. TransWorld teachings of his church. Hardison, 63, 85, 97 S.Ct. during undisputed the course of L.Ed.2d 131. employer, most of Dean’s tenure with his contends that the “reasonable Ithaca also Sunday requested. labor not How- employee’s to an accommodation” ever, production in 1984 increased demand the First Amendment. belief violates plant of the required operation six seven view of our conclusion need consid- per work on days week. When er issue. necessary supervisors initially

AFFIRMED If there were not asked volunteers. volunteers, enough employees were de- concurring: WILKINS, Judge, to work Dean was re- tailed compelled result Our quested to work on four occa- Bank, National North Carolina April January between sions Cir.1977). reason- cases where on each occasion. On these occa- de- an “absolute” accommodation able sions other were detailed to may be reached mand place, in his and on one occasion his hardship,” Trans World undue “without him. supervisor filled Hardison, U.S. Airlines, *5 employer is that the The record clear 2264, 2271, 53 L.Ed.2d 97 S.Ct. attempted and in within reason faith unreason- its own “speaks such demand The issue to accommodate Dean. dates beyond accommoda- thus ableness [is] standing provide a reasonable infer- alone Jordan, F.2d at tion.” supervisor requested Sunday that the ence is dis- that Jordan contends The dissent basis, asking work on a rotation Dean’s employer “the there tinguishable because requir- only per once month and assistance the to accommodate make some effort did employee when Dean re- ing it of another added.) (Emphasis employee.” prospective it evident that Only fused. when became case, shows more record But, in the any compromise would not man- accommodate employer the by efforts complained ner, after other than those employee’s religious beliefs the treatment, preferential after the last of his Jordan, pro- In Jordan. evidenced made, requests four and after Dean compa- explained to the employee spective Sunday, did again to work on ter- personnel that she “would ny’s interviewer employer’s The efforts at mination result. id. Sabbath],” Saturdays work on [her con- were sufficient when accommodation job accept a unless she would not uncompro- by fronted an absolute “guarantee” she that would received she mising position by employee. the Id. Saturdays. to work on not be asked HALL, Judge, dissenting: K.K. responded “we employer that 75. The ... but certainly to accommodate try would agree majority’s I cannot the con- binding guar- give her a formal we couldn’t adequate clusion that Ithaca made efforts by The effort the antee.” Id. reasonably accommodate Dean’s apparent employer to accommodate was reason, gious practices. respect- For I offer, employee, of work rejected the fully dissent. basis, actually if there “trial to ascertain majority position that an takes the problem on her Sabbath.” of work his employee who refuses to work on Sab- Id. at 76. unreasonable, being thereby reliev- bath Here, duty (Dean) any “just ing couldn’t the further compromise my belief. question,” view, Rights Act declaring just “I assumes Sundays. don’t work on Civil employees will not work on certain foregoing reasons, For the I would re- any Moreover, reason. Sabbath verse the of the district court. places clearly employers Act the burden on effort to

to make some accom- religious practice. individual’s I

modate an any

can see no indication Ithaca made at all to accommodate Dean.

effort

true that Ithaca did demonstrate an effort

to accommodate all their when assigned.1 work was These accom- Jimmy JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, modations, however, clearly not for addition,

religious reasons. Ithaca made no effort to accommodate Dean BOWEN, M.D., Otis R. Secretary, De- suggested by guidelines methods partment of Health and Human regulations.2 20 C.F.R. 1605.- Services, Defendant-Appellee. 2(d)(l)(i). No. 86-4949 Summary Calendar. relies North majority Bank, National Carolina United States Court of Appeals, holding Cir.1977) its that there support Fifth Circuit. can no reasonable accommodation Aug. 12, 1987. Dean’s absolute refusal work on However, Jordan, did pro-

make some effort to accommodate the

spective employee and inwas fact accom-

modating another who refused to majority’s

work on her Sabbath. The Airlines,

liance on Trans World

Hardison, 97 S.Ct. *6 similarly misplaced.

L.Ed.2d 113 World, Trans had looked

at all the alternatives available to enable it gave

to accommodate the why rejected thereby

reasons it them. It statutory obligation.

satisfied its In this

case, absolutely Ithaca made no effort

accommodation. view, my Dean presented a valid why reason he could not work

Sunday (which acknowledged reasons), Ithaca then violated Rights

the Civil Act its failure at-

tempt accommodate Dean’s

religious trial, According testimony practices: (a) voluntary elicited the use of substitutes supervisors made effort to be fair all substantially qualifications by pub- similar assigning Sunday when work be- atmosphere in licizing policies, promoting an cause none of the wanted to regarded favorably which substitutions are Sundays. providing a central file or bulletin board for substitutes; (b) matching flexible schedul- regulations 2. The following set out the as exam- ing by floating optional holidays. means of ples accommodating religious of some means of