Dalberiste v. GLE Associates

For Mitche Dalberiste, honoring the Sabbath by resting from work and practicing his religion is of utmost importance to his faith of the Seventh-day Adventists. So important, in fact, that Mr. Dalberiste made sure to alert his new employers at the engineering and consulting firm, GLE Associates, of his practices. Due to Title  VII of the Civil Rights Act, stating that employers must “reasonably accommodate” the religious practices of their employees, Mr. Dalberiste knew it was well within his rights to be excused from work on the Sabbath day in order to respect his religious beliefs. The firm, however, responded by rescinding Mr. Dalberiste’s job offer the next day. Even further, an old Supreme Court decision that allowed employers to refuse employees such accommodations caused both the district court and appellate court to be unable to rule in favor of Mr. Dalberiste.  In light of this, Mr. Dalberiste and his legal team are hoping to have their case heard by the US Supreme Court so that they may reevaluate their past ruling and, subsequently, remain aligned with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause detailed within the First Amendment of the US Constitution. 

In this case, potential violation of both religious clauses within the First Amendment are brought into question. The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of religion by neither being allowed to promote religion nor inhibit it. In this case, does GLE Associates’ decision to rescind Mr. Dalberiste’s job offer due to his requested accommodations inhibit Mr. Dalberiste’s religious beliefs, establishing a preference for no religion, or for religions that don’t require Sabbath day rest? Or, conversely, does GLE Associates’ decision make sure to not establish religion by refusing to promote the religious beliefs Mr. Dalberiste holds? Secondly, the Free Exercise Clause allows citizens to practice their religion however they want, unless the practice directly clashes with government’s interest or the greater social good. In Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, does GLE Associates’ decision violate Mr. Dalberiste’s right to practice his religion as he pleases? Or does Mr. Dalberiste’s need to be excused from work on the Sabbath day conflict with the greater social good by disrupting the workflow at GLE Associates? Finally, it is necessary to revisit the prior Supreme Court case upon which this case was built – Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In this case, an airline worker (Hardison) with seniority status was accommodated by being allowed to take off Saturdays in order to observe the Sabbath. However, when Hardison began a new job in which he had low seniority, the company (Trans World Airlines) was no longer able to accommodate his religious practices. As a result, Hardin brought his case to court, similarly claiming violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Ultimately, the court ruled against Hardin, claiming that TWA should not be required to violate the company rules of seniority and, due to their previous attempts to accommodate Hardin, had satisfied the “reasonable accommodation” outlined in Title VII. Does this case provide necessary precedent to indicate how the court should rule in the case of Mr. Dalberiste?

I believe that the decision of GLE Associates is in direct violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and I also believe that TWA v. Hardison should be reconsidered as it does not provide appropriate precedent. By refusing Mr. Dalberiste work due to his religious practices, GLE Associates are essentially establishing religion by attempting to coerce Mr. Dalberiste to forfeit his religious beliefs and conform to the company’s religious expectations in order to make a living for his family. Secondly, the decision serves to inhibit Mr. Dalberiste’s right to practice his religion any way he wants, as this action would not be putting anyone in society at harm or destroying the practices of GLE Associates. Further, TWA v. Hardin is a poor ruling by the court and, as I believe TWA’s actions similarly violate the clauses regarding religion within the First Amendment, should not serve as the standard for ruling in Mr. Dalberiste’s case. But even further, the Hardin case more readily meets the reasonable accommodation requirement as stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. While I believe TWA’s decision does violate both religious clauses, TWA did, in fact, aim to accommodate Hardin initially and were even able to do so for a period of time. The only time in which the accommodations were called into question were when they were at risk of violating other company policies, risking a disruption of company functions. In Mr. Dalberiste’s case, GLE Associates failed to even attempt accommodating Mr. Dalberiste, further proving their violation of his constitutional rights. Ultimately, this case is crucial to understanding the potential of legal restriction of religion (particularly minority religions) in the workplace and subsequent coercion of beliefs when individuals must question their ability to make a living for survival, as well as understanding the link between precedent set by prior cases and the constraining impact that this may have a on a court’s ruling. If simply changing shifts to accommodate Mr. Dalberiste is considered "unreasonable" by the current precedent set by TWA v. Hardin, what form of accommodation would ever be considered "reasonable" and therefore permissible?