What happens when work assignments under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) or other seniority system conflict with an employee’s religious beliefs?
Hosea Harrell was one of seven full time letter carriers for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) station in Warrensburg, MO. With the exception of the most senior employee, all of them were required under the office seniority system to work a rotating schedules that included every sixth Saturday.
Harrell asked not to work on Saturdays because his religion (Seventh-day Adventist) prohibits working on that day. USPS offered to shorten the Saturday shift to let him attend worship services (which he declined) and asked the other carriers (without success) to give up their non-scheduled Saturdays to accommodate him. Harrell also turned down an offer to transfer him laterally to another position or another office..
Ultimately, Harrell was fired after failing to report for a number of his Saturday shifts. He then sued under Title VII for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate his religious beliefs. After the trial court dismissed his claims, he appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals court explained in Harrell v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 10-1694 (8th Cir. March 31, 2011) that where an employee’s religious beliefs conflict with an employment requirement, the employer must show either (1) an offer of reasonable accommodation or (2) that such an accommodation would cause the employer to suffer an “undue hardship.” The Eighth Circuit ruled that the USPS had shown both because:
- Well-established law protects employers from having to provide an accommodation that violates a CBA. Giving Harrell every Saturday off would essentially require USPS to unilaterally change his job to one with a fixed, weekday schedule. CBA’s typically require, as this one did, employers to bargain with the union about creating new jobs.
- Harrel’s request would require the other five letter carriers to give up some of their Saturdays off. Title VII does not require a religious-based accommodation with more than a minimal burden on co-workers. Requiring the other staff to relinquish free Saturdays was more than just a minimal burden, according to the Court.
- Finally, Harrell’s accommodation would essentially put him at the top of the seniority list, contrary to the terms of the Warrensburg office seniority system. Harrell argued that only seniority systems in CBA’s are protected, but the appeals court ruled that a religious accommodation is not reasonable if it violates any sort of bona fide seniority system.
Bottom Line
Good faith dialogue is always beneficial in resolving conflicts between religious beliefs and work requirements. However, if the employer can’t accommodate without burdening the rights of other employees, the accommodation is an undue hardship. The Eighth Circuit apparently believes that an accommodation that violates a collective bargaining agreement or other bona fide seniority system is by definition just such an undue hardship.