Mitche Dalberiste, an environmental technician, is a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist and he participates in the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a religious process that requires participants to spend time with family, worship God, and volunteer in the community. For Seventh-Day Adventists, the Sabbath runs from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.
Dalberiste was hired in April 2016 by GLE Associates, an integrated architecture, engineering, and environmental consulting firm. During the onboarding process, Dalberiste made it abundantly clear to his supervisor that he was unable to work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday as he observed the Seventh-Day Adventist’s Sabbath. Besides sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, Dalberiste was available to work all other times of the week. With his request in mind, GLE Associates rescinded their job offer, even though they lacked any inquiry into whether his request for the religious accommodation was reasonable forcing Dalberiste to choose between the GLE Associates position or his religious values. GLE Associates also never mentioned during the hiring process that working during the weekends were required.
Following the news, Mitche Dalberiste formulated a lawsuit against the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate acts of religious practice with the only exception being if the accommodation causes financial harm to the company. The Act also bars employers of significant size from “discriminating on a number of bases, such as race, sex, and religious practice” (Dalberiste v. GLE Associates). The company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
GLE Associates did not accept Dalberiste’s request due to the precedent set forth in the 1977 Supreme Court ruling of Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In a 7 to 2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Trans World Airlines claiming that an employer, of any size, can deny an employee's request for religious accommodations if it displays the potential for even the slightest negative effect on the company. This Supreme Court ruling greatly imposes on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, especially for those who practice minority religions and in the case of Dalberiste, those whose Sabbath day does not land on the majorities. Many have called on the Supreme Court to revisit this decision, including the Department of Justice who claimed that Hardison’s ruling is both “incorrect and irreconcilable” (Dalberiste v. GLE Associates).
Mitche Dalberiste filed the lawsuit against GLE Associates in Flordia federal district court. His goal was to defend his right to free exercise of religion and his right to earn a living while maintaining his religious practices. At the conclusion of the suit, the district court ruled in favor of GLE Associates as they based their ruling in the results of Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. The district court’s decision did not stop Dalberiste as he is now requesting the Supreme Court to review the district court ruling. Dalberiste and his associates are now asking for the Supreme Court to “restore religious liberty to its proper place in employment law. No American should have to choose between providing for his family and practicing a central tenet of his faith” (Dalberiste v. GLE Associates).
After reviewing the details of the Dalberiste v. GLE Associates case, I believe that it is clear that Dalberiste’s right to free exercise of religion and his right to earn a living while maintaining his religious practices was violated by GLE Associates. Their decision to rescind their job offer after he made note of his religious accommodations infringes on his first amendment rights. As the Trans World Airlines v. Hardison case has come into question, it is important to examine another Supreme Court case that shares some similarities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores case details how Abercrombie & Fitch did not hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, due to her not meeting the companies look policy since she wore a hijab. The Court ruled that to hold the employer liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which the “applicant for a position must only show that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision not to hire her.” (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores). This decision demonstrates a new precedent that should have been followed by the district court in Dalberiste v. GLE Associates. After examining the outcomes of both Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores and Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, it becomes clear that GLE Associates violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Dalberiste’s right to free exercise of religion.
4 comments:
I agree with your stance on this case. To begin, I think that precedents, as they are important, should be viewed in terms of modern society. Precedents are not permanent and can change as society progresses. Therefore, I do believe that Dalbertiste’s right to freely practice his religion while earning a living wage was violated because GLE Associated rescinded their job offer based on his religious practices and beliefs. Under Title VII, it is made clear that this was a violation. They could have accommodated his religious requests, if his absence in working on weekends truly negatively affected their company, by asking him to make-up those hours on other days.
I agree with your opinion on this case that GLE Associates clearly violated Dalbertiste’s right to exercise his religion freely without an added economic burden. Since Dalbertiste clearly proved that GLE Associates was motivated to not hire them on the basis of need for accommodation, it was a clear violation of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Dalbertiste’s first amendment right to freely exercise his religion with excess burden.
As for precedent, the precedent established by Trans World Airlines v. Hardison should be reconsidered. Though the Supreme Court does take precedent into account, they are not held to an expectation that every legal precedent they've set must be considered as part of their job is reexamining whether or not that precedent should have been made in the first place.
I agree with Megan's decision and opinion in this case. I believe that GLE Associates directly violated the civil rights act of 1964 and I addition violated the first amendment as Dalberiste was faced with unfair treatment because of his religious beliefs. GLE Associates treated Dalberiste terribly in firing him after being made aware of his religious obligations, and even though the president was set in Trans World Airlines v Hardison, no precedent is final and above all. I believe that this case brings up an important topic about precedents that I was formerly unaware of in that 1. not all precedents can dictate what occurs in cases, and 2. new precedents can be made all the time and courts should take precedents with a grain of salt as all cases have different circumstances and details.
Megan,
I agree with your argument that this case infringes upon Dalbertiste's First Amendment right to practice his religion. This reminded me of Braunfeld v. Brown in which Jewish merchants sued because a Pennsylvania blue law prevented them effectively from working on the weekends. The Court concluded there that Sunday being a day of peace had become non-religious. I do believe, however, that if that case were relitigated today, that the result would have been different.
It would be hard to make a good faith argument that having a man unable to work one day per week would negatively affect a company. Is he supposed to work seven days a week?
Post a Comment