In 2016, Walmart offered Ed Hedican the job of assistant manager. He asked for a religious exemption from work on the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath, which is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. He also expressed his willingness to work any other day in the week as well as 12 hour shifts. In response to Hedican's religious accommodation request, Walmart rescinded the job offer and recommended that he should perhaps apply to a lower rank, hourly position.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued the company, arguing that Hedican’s civil rights were violated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Within these rights it is required for employers to “reasonably accommodate” employees' religious practices. Walmart, however, claimed allowing Hedican the job with these accommodations would cause “undue hardship” to the company. Under Title VII, falling victim “undue hardship” is when such accommodations are no longer considered reasonable.
The Seventh Circuit sided with Walmart, which is the largest private employer in the nation, due to the “slight burden” that “trade shifts with other assistant managers” causes to the company, as well as other employees.
The court based their decision upon a preceding Supreme Court case, Transworld Airlines v. Hardison, where an employee of the airline company was let go due to his request to not work on the Sabbath day of his religion, Worldwide Church of God, when he was transferred to another building. Because of his transfer, he was no longer provided with seniority status and privileges in his previous place of work. The court sided with Transworld Airlines due to the fact that the company had made a negotiation with the union for the seniority system to exist. Bypassing the system was not an option. The judge of this case, Justice Byron R. White, did address that within Title VII, the terms “undue hardship” as well as “reasonable accommodations” are not defined.
Despite this vague wording of the title, the court sided with Walmart based upon the conclusion of the Transworld case. White had interpreted Transworld meeting with Hardison but not agreeing to pay others for overtime on the shifts he would have missed as “reasonable,” and that bypassing the agreement made with the union regarding the seniority system would result in “undue hardship” of the company. It was expressed by the Seventh Circuit in the Hedican v. Walmart case that defining the potential accommodation of Hedican’s work schedule as an “undue hardship” seems extreme (due to the wealth of the company), but that their hands are tied based upon previous cases like Transworld Airlines v. Hardison. The Supreme Court’s review of the case was not asked for.
The case begs the question should Title VII be modified regarding its lack of specificity? Hedican worked hard and had all the qualifications to be an assistant manager. According to the Becket analysis of this case, revoking his job offer presents a much more extreme hardship towards him than Walmart, who in 2020 alone accumulated over half a trillion dollars. They are rejecting a man a $50,000 salary. Why is the burden of slightly modifying a work schedule a justification to reject a job offer? The shuffling of the schedule is simply not an “undue hardship” for Walmart, as they certainly have the funds to accommodate Hedican’s request.
The modification of Title VII could involve the addition of a definition of these vague phrases, and could specify that an “undue hardship” is more than a slight chance of any type of burden. The size and income of the company should be taken into consideration, as well as, in the case of the Sabbath days, the number of hours missing (though Hedican proposed that he could make up the time lost by picking up extra shifts to make up for the lost time).
However, where is the line? If there is a religion, for instance, that requires four days a week to practice Sabbath, would that be considered an “undue hardship” even to a company as big as Walmart? It would certainly be a more solid argument in their favor, but, again, at this point, due to the results of Transworld Airlines v. Hardison, any argument Walmart can come up with is a solid one that will earn them a victory.
As of 1977, when the Supreme Court ruled the airline victorious, cases involving accomodations for the exemption of work on a Sabbath day have been skewed, favoring the employer. Basically anything can be interpreted as some sort of “undue hardship” based upon Judge White’s relaxed interpretation. In fact, there was not even a willingness to try to accommodate Hedican's needs and Walmart still managed to win. Employers are required by law to not be discriminatory based upon religion, but the results of this case seem to say otherwise. What do you think the solution is to make big companies like Walmart to stop discrimination?
https://www.becketlaw.org/case/hedican-v-walmart/
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/758/trans-world-airlines-v-hardison\
This is an interesting case, and I think it would be worth explaining Walmart's side of the situation. This particular store may have put up the job posting to fulfill a particular need, which in this case would be a need for a manager to work on a Saturday. If Mr. Hadican cannot work on a Saturday, which is a principle need for the company, why should they be required to give him the job anyway? They are going to have to find someone else to fill the position, which means that now they're paying two people an elevated salary when it could have just been one.
ReplyDeleteThe court’s decision to rule in favor of Walmart on the basis of “undue hardship” seems to contradict Ed Hedican’s constitutional right to religious accommodation. I would understand the justices’ decision making if Ed Hedican work request occurred at a small company with limited employees. However, due to the size and success of Walmart, I do not think that “undue hardship” to the company is a legitimate reason to terminate his job offer. The “burden” placed upon Walmart by Hedican’s accommodation is burden its company could handle due to their large scale of employee’s and economic resources.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an important case because it shows that even an employer the size of Walmart was able to win because of the vagueness of both "undue hardship" and "reasonable accommodations". If an employee of a company with the access to resources that Walmart has isn't able to get an exemption for a religious day, then who does? I agree with Paris's point that if the work request was at a smaller company with limited employees, or not enough employees at the level of a manager to make it work then it would be a much different situation. Knowing the size of Walmart, and the nationwide success, it is very hard to believe that this request burdened them in any way. Additionally, even if they denied his request I don't believe it is a legitimate reason to terminate his job offer, especially because he offered to work more shifts other days to make it up. The biggest, most public companies are the hardest to hold accountable, and as long as they don't want to comply or someone steps in to stop them, the discrimination will inevitably continue.
ReplyDelete