The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
SCOTUS Grants Cert To Reconsider TWA v. Hardison
May the "de minimis" test go the way of Trans World Airlines.
Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977) provided a very narrow reading of Title VII's protections against religious discrimination. Under that decision, a private employer does not need to accommodate an employee's religious exercise if doing so would require the employer "to bear more than a de minimis cost." Yet, the language of Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee's religious exercise unless it would suffer an "undue hardship." An "undue hardship," under any reading of the text, must be more than a "de minimis cost." But Hardison was decided in the bad-old days when textualism wasn't very important. For decades, Hardison has stood in tension with Title VII. Yet, the precedent has stood.
In 2021, the Supreme Court denied cert in two cases that sought reconsideration of Hardison. At the time, I speculated that there may have been some vehicle problems with those petitions.
Today, the Supreme Court granted review in Groff v. DeJoy. This case expressly asks the Court to reconsider the Hardison standard. There are two questions presented:
1. Whether this Court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing Title VII religious accommodations stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).
2. Whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's co-workers rather than the business itself.
Congratulations to the First Liberty Institute and Baker Botts for the grant. The case should be argued in April. May the "de minimis" test go the way of Trans World Airlines: defunct.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs. involved "a practicing Seventh-day Adventist whose religion forbids him from working on the Sabbath, which occurs from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday."
Small v. Light involved a practicing Jehovah's Witness, who "explained that he had services on Wednesday evenings and Sundays and that he had community work on Saturdays."
Groff v. DeJoy involves "a Christian who observes a Sunday Sabbath, believing that day is meant for worship and rest."
Groff is much better vehicle to overrule TWA because it involves a proper Christian who worships on Sundays, which a larger portion of the American public can likely sympathize with. The text, history and tradition are clearly going to be on the side of the Christian who wants Sundays off from work.
Exactly what text do you think distinguishes the last case from the other two?
I’m surmising the implication is that the text doesn’t actually differentiate the situations, and so— if the outcome is different— presumably it’s history and tradition that are determinative.
"history and tradition"
"Prejudice" is more succinct.
Why do we get one post from you for every 500 or so posts from Dr. Ed 2 or the new idiot Bumblebee?
I know, life ain't fair.
QBC
You can always go to Counterpunch or Alternet or Fark's Politics tab if you want to read more breathless leftist hypothesizing. The only actual "contribution" in QBC's comment above was an assertion that the Supreme Court would treat different cases differently because of the specific religious practices involved and a phrase used in a Second Amendment decision. It wasn't backed up by even a vague excuse for the assertion.
Not sure you realize what an insult to conservativism you just gave equating it with Dr. Ed 2 and Mr. Bumble.
And then you argue citing cases for a proposition is empty of content.
You could have come back with a logical argument like Rossami, or you could pen this paeon to rejecting seriousness on the right.
Stop making shit up. If you can. Your straw-man shtick got tedious a long, long time ago.
So only sufficiently popular religions should be afforded protection? No mischief to be had there at all.
You can think that. Or you could actually read the article including the sentence where Prof Blackman "speculated that there may have been some vehicle problems with those petitions" and gave a link to the article where he described those 'vehicle problems'.
If you think that analysis was wrong, perhaps you'd care to share why rather than just tossing out conspiracy theories.
Flew TWA, Pan Am, Lufthansa, El Al, and Delta as a kid (OK, maybe "Upper" Middle Class upbringing) always wore a Suit, ate better on the jet than most airport restaurants today, and "Flight Attendants" were hot as fuck, especially the Lufthansa/El Al oh, sorry, internal monologue,
now it's not even Greyhound, more like Trailways,
I still wear a suit,
Frank
Glad to see franks bizarro story hour has survived into the new year
More cool shit in one of my posts than the sum total of your "work", apologize for having an interesting life (started IV's on Sheryl Crow, Senators William Roth, AND Jesse Helms, no, not at the same time)
Frank
Having ridden on an airplane on the 80s is “cool shit”? Or maybe it’s that you still wear a suit on planes? Super cool shit dude!
It was Late 1960's/1970s, you'd know if you didn't have a Pubic Screw-el Ed-jew-ma-cation, before Jimmuh Cartuh deregulated the Airlines and turned them into Greyhounds with wings.
And yes, for a 9 year old, flying from ATL to JFK to FRA to TLV (and back) in 1971 was pretty exciting, I thought every dude with a beard was gonna fly us to Libya. Even LAX/DFW/ATL/DFW/LAX to visit the grandparents was pretty cool before Cell Phones,
But hey, you're I-ronic (man!) you think 1980's was ancient History (it's the 1950's actually, don't remember anything from them) and you stole your name from something you saw on the Internets,
Be Honest (Man!) are you Pete Booty-Judge??
I mean, you sound really spun up over his most recent Fuck-Up-ed-ness in his area of "Expertise", Transportation (apparently he's able to arrange his own Transportation on Tax Payer funded Government Jets pretty well)
So in summary, go away, Junior, let the Grownups talk,
Frank
Cool shit!
Call the Smithsonian, first lucid comment you've made ever,
OK, Aviano Airbase Italy, 1996, VIP on an incoming AF jet has a "Medical Emergency", yours truly was Flight Surgeon on duty, usually was some State Department Peon with Airsickness, Senate "Aid" with a hangover,
This one was Sheryl Crow, on her way to do an USO show, with an umm "Medical Emergency"
that required IV Fluids, anti-emetics, and supplemental Oxygen (there should be supplemental Oxygen)
Ms. Crow felt much better after my "Intervention" and I got an autographed album (remember Albums? of Course not, you don't remember the 1980's) and backstage pass to her USO show,
OK, Senators Roth/Helms stories, not as good,
Frank
Ah, so you were just one stop away from the sniper-fire-that-wasn't. Small world indeed.
Let me get this straight. All this guy needed to do was work 40 hours a week before Sundays and he’d be exempted from the Sunday Amazon deliveries?
Who cares? it's a free country, it's not Russia (is this Russia? No, this isn't Russia) go work for someone that doesn't make you work on Sunday.
I completely agree— Mr. Groff should seek a position at his nearest chik-fil-a at his first opportunity.
Sounds like you're familiar with their work, can you get him in on your shift?
Just an observation,
you've apparently never played Chess,
Frank "O-O-O to touch and feel a Girl's Vagina and Hymen, so Heavenly"
Boy! I say Boy! I ordered a "Spicy" Chicken Sandwich, not a "Regular" Chicken Sandwich!!!! are you "Afflicted" or something ??(admit, you own an "Afflicted" T-shirt) Get me your "Manager", Boy!
So what's it like working at Chick Fil-A?? Is your store one with a "Dwarf House"??? Do they give you any "Special" accommodations due to your "Disability"?
Frank
2. Whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee's co-workers rather than the business itself.
If that point goes for the employer, and if I'm the co-worker, I want my own religious exemption, from the exactions the employee's religion imposes on me. How the hell would that not be establishment of religion?
It doesn't establish a religion as correct, or require you to practice or profess any religious idea. What sincerely held religious position would require your suggested "religious exemption"?
Michael P — In my hypothetical, my co-worker, on the basis of his religion, forces me to do his job, and the government backs him up on that. It is thus my co-worker's sincerely held religious conviction which causes the mischief. Absent some symmetrically-operating exemption from religion of my own, government has imposed my co-worker's religion on me. I am not a lesser citizen than my co-worker, merely because I practice no religion. Government's requirement that I materially support my co-worker's religion with my labor is a government establishment of his religion—no less an establishment than if government had imposed a tax on me for the support of his religion. The equivalence is exact.
"In my hypothetical, my co-worker, on the basis of his religion, forces me to do his job, and the government backs him up on that."
How is it possible that you're misunderstanding your own hypo? The employee isn't forcing you to do his job. The employer is.
The employer is only forcing that if the answer to the second Question Presented is “no”, in which case Title VII is a government action requiring the employer to force him to do the coworker’s job. Otherwise, if the answer is “yes”, the employer wins this case and makes the coworker do the coworker’s job (or quit/get fired).
Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
If, as in Groff, the job is one that many people do and the business operates at times when not everyone is working then you are doing someone else's job every time you work a shift. Adjusting the schedule to meet someone else's needs imposes a burden on you, not everybody can get Sunday off, but it is hardly imposing his religion on you. If your schedule was adjusted to accommodate his chemotherapy treatments, would you claim the government was giving you cancer?
Stephen may have a point.
In Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), SCOTUS unanimously found that accommodations of religious practices do not violate the Establishment Clause when the government "alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise" and (or?) "take[s] adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries."
I have no idea what constitutes "adequate account." But in this case, third-parties (other employees and the employer) are burdened, and the accommodation is a government obligation rather than a lifting of a government burden. So, I can see how the Establishment Clause issue is raised.
On the other hand, it would not surprise me if SCOTUS held that whatever standard applied to "undue hardship" also met the "adequate account" standard, and the Establishment Clause analysis was superfluous.
The thing is, the single most prominent example of religious accommodations also has the single biggest burden on nonbeneficiaries, and nobody questions that: conscientious objection from the draft. If you refuse to go, someone else has to go in your place, where they could well be injured or killed. That's a lot more significant than having to work Sundays.
Certainly, that's a huge burden. However, that accommodation lifts a government burden and applies to religious and secular objectors alike.
You probably need to flesh out that hypothetical a lot more, because you working one set of 40 hours and him working a different set of 40 hours doesn't mean anyone is forcing you to exercise his religion or do his job.
Are you willing to accept that the cases saying that undue hardship requires more than de minimis efforts to accommodate the disabled were wrong?
Reader Y — I would distinguish those cases. There is a constitutional bar to establishment of religion. There is no constitutional bar to a requirement to assist the disabled.
It is not the government's job to "protect" you from religious (or other) "discrimination" by private actors.
Ed Grinberg — It is likewise not the government's job to tax me to support others' religions. To commandeer my labor for that support is no different than taxation to support a religion.
Likewise, I support religious liberty. But where practice of religion is in practical conflict with otherwise legal secular practices, it is up to the religionists to bear any pains and penalties thus created. For literally millennia, throughout the world's nations and religions (with conspicuous exceptions for those nations which establish religion), that has been counted one of the chief virtues a religionist must exercise.
Note also, our constitutional tradition commands a secular government constrained against overt attacks on religion. It does not command material support for religion. On the contrary, it prohibits that.
How convenient for a member of a majority religion to say that. The system is already structured "secularly" to protect their practice of religion. The government and most businesses are closed on Christmas. So Christians don't have to "bear any pains and penalties" to observe that day. But Yom Kippur is not an official holiday, so Jews do. How nice for you.
Nieporent, I guess I am better at this diversity stuff than you are. So are some of the Jews I do business with.
My No. 1 vendor over about 20 years has been B&H, in New York. It is probably the nation’s most successful retailer and online merchant for photographic equipment, and professional photographic supplies. It does also a roaring business in computer equipment, and video, including television sales.
My general advice to anyone looking to buy anything which B&H carries is to buy it from them. Do not even consider anyone else. They are experts on everything they carry, their prices are aggressively competitive, and their customer service is the best I have ever experienced.
But to reap those benefits, customers must accommodate themselves to a business schedule organized around the religious practices of observant Jews, which I am not. For instance, B&H closes for Passover, all of it. It also observes the other principal Jewish holidays. It is closed on Saturdays. On balance, as inconvenient as scheduled Jewish observance can be at times for my business needs, I am fine with that.
As you can see, I have no complaint about B&H. Whatever it is which drives them to the excellence they demonstrate so uniformly, I can only applaud, and work around.
Why are you complaining?
You don't have any right to accommodations as a customer, so I'm not sure why you're bringing any of this up. We're talking about employees.
Nieporent, you think B&H doesn't have employees? They work for an employer which does as a matter of conscience what you insist will prove intolerable to do unless government enforces a carve out. And the business is conspicuously successful—one of the best in the world at what it does. Seems like B&H, and its employees, have taken in stride, without suffering hindrance, whatever pains and penalties attend non-conformance to majority business norms. My hat is off to them.
I would not characterize Title VII's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion (e.g., possibly making it illegal for an employer to require Christian employees to work on Sunday because the business is closed on Saturday) as a "carve out."
I think it does. I just think you're not one of them, so whether you have a complaint about B&H is irrelevant to this discussion.
I literally said nothing of the kind. What I said was that saying "oh, suck it up" to employees is facile when one is almost never in a position to have to suck it up because one is a member of the predominant religion.
Did I sound like I was complaining about B&H? Whose comments are you reading?
--An "undue hardship," under any reading of the text, must be more than a "de minimis cost."
I don't think that's self-evident. They could be the same (unlikely, given legal maxims that different language typically must mean something different), or undue hardship could be lower than de minimis.
--2. Whether an employer may demonstrate “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee’s co-workers rather than the business itself.
That's obvious. Businesses are their employees (among other things). You can't separate the two, and for most legal purposes, we don't separate the two.
So businesses are under no obligation to provide disability accommodation if it costs them more than de minimis or affects other employees? The cases saying more was required were wrong?
The logic ought to be the same for both.
Reader Y — The logic should not the same for both. Disability accommodation is not constitutionally barred. Establishment of religion is.
Now all you have to do is show that the government requiring a business to, say, allow a Jewish person to work the early shift on Fridays so that he's done by sundown — if it doesn't significantly impact the business — is an "establishment of religion."
In Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., (1985), a Connecticut law which required businesses to give the Sabbath day off to observant employees was held to violate the Establishment Clause. That may not be enough to make Lahtrop's case, but it goes a long way.
If your god wants (or requires) you to make life tougher for your co-workers, that god is a paltry thing in addition to being illusory.
The language in the statute is similar. So why shouldn’t the interpretation be similar? If “undue hardship” requires considerable more than just de minimis cost elsewhere, why shouldn’t it here? If one claims to be giving textualist interpretations, similar text ought to lead to similar results.
If one claims to be giving textualist interpretations, similar text ought to lead to similar results.
Not under contrasting constitutional decrees.
Under that decision, a private employer does not need to accommodate an employee's religious exercise if doing so would require the employer "to bear more than a de minimis cost." Yet, the language of Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee's religious exercise unless it would suffer an "undue hardship." An "undue hardship," under any reading of the text, must be more than a "de minimis cost." But Hardison was decided in the bad-old days when textualism wasn't very important.
Huh? I don't understand your reasoning. Yes, as you say, an "undue hardship," under any reading of the text, must be more than a "de minimis cost." And that is exactly what the Supreme Court said in Hardison. A de minimis cost is not an undue hardship; more than that is. So what is your problem with it?
You misunderstand. What the Supreme Court said in Hardison was that anything more than de minimis was an undue burden on the employer. That's what's not consistent with the text. A small cost is more than de minimis, but not an undue burden.
Says who? How is it that "on any reading", a cost that is large enough not to be de minimis is nonetheless not undue?
I am puzzled why the size of the burden is worthy of any consideration at all. If Congress passes a law requiring all Americans to contribute via the IRS $0.10 per year to support Episcopalian ministries, is that okay constitutionally?
There remains an issue with regard to conscientious objection to military service. On the basis of history and tradition, that is distinguishable from RFRA-mandated burdens. As a matter of purely formal consideration, conscientious objection has enjoyed protection for centuries, and has been a constitutional right protected in some state constitutions from the founding of the nation. Conscientious objection is readily recognizable. Even skeptics of conscientious objection tend to concede the striking salience of the moral claims at stake. Its long and widespread history and tradition reassure us that conscientious objection is unlikely to metastasize into more-expansive claims to other kinds of religious privilege, with their concomitant burdens on non-religionists.
RFRA-based privileges are not similarly bounded. Politics being what it is, we can expect continuous pressure to expand the scope and burdensome impositions on others from such laws. It is past time to consider their repeal, or that failing, to establish a bright line perimeter around the kinds of burdens which such laws can impose. The size of such burdens should be without constitutional relevance.
Is it your position that any limit on employers’ ability to fire or not hire employees over religous differences violates the Establishment Clause if it imposes any burden on them at all? If so, then surely requiring employers to have to suffer infidels, blasphemers and heretics to darken their doors is itself already far more than a minimal burden. Why isn’t such a limitation on employers’ traditional private property rights, including the right to exclude for any reason or no reason, also unconstitutional?
Is it your position that any limit on employers’ ability to fire or not hire employees over religous differences violates the Establishment Clause if it imposes any burden on them at all?
Except where the activities contemplated for the employment have an overtly religious character, I do not think employers should be at liberty to take employees' religious practices into account. It is entirely appropriate, however, to restrict to co-religionists activities pursuant to indoctrinating and promulgating a religion.
Usually, it will not be appropriate to require that cafeteria workers and floor sweepers be co-religionists. I might reconsider that last bit in the case of a religion which made commitment to humble toil an obligation of religious devotion, to be imposed on all its members alike, as might happen in a monastic order.
I might also have some issues to review as to corporate status for religious employers. I am at least skeptical of any legal doctrine which insists on a liberty for exercise of conscience by legal fictions. I am a committed secularist citizen. I say if you are a conscience-regarding natural person the law ought not go out of its way to trouble that exercise. But I deny that a corporate fiction has any conscience to regard. I insist that practitioners of religion who are scrupulous about their employment activities must also scruple to avoid use of the corporate form to advance those religious activities. If they can find a way to separate material and worldly activities from religious ones, and choose to convenience the former by means of a corporation, more power to them.
I note in passing—as a matter of history and tradition—I am in tiny part descended from Puritans whose North American forebear is said to have arrived on these shores via the Star Chamber. I do not think any in that line of descent disagreed with me in the slightest on assertions like those I make on these issues.
I mention that only to introduce the point that this nation has a long tradition of notably conscience-regarding religious practitioners who not only have not demanded government supports for their religious activities, but who also have shunned any such supports as intolerable entanglements. I think there is wisdom in that, for both religionists, and for government.
This position is precluded by Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987)
You do realize that pretty much every church, synagogue, temple, and mosque in the United States uses the corporate form, right?
Nieporent, in my advocacy churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques in the United States remain free to choose any form they please. But if they choose the corporate form, they will not get my assent to special treatment from government based on the notion of an imaginary conscience grafted onto a legal fiction.
Also, I remain mindful that for millennia not one of them used the corporate form. A great many of the world's buildings where various religions are practiced are notably older than the corporate form.
The corporate form is a very effective way of representing the rights of the religious community.
One of the COVID-related cases involved a claim that while an individual member doesn’t have an obligation (as an individual) to attend ordinary services, the community, the church, nonetheless has an obligation to conduct them, and hence COVID restrictions violated communal as distinct from purely individual religious rights. The corporate form, which regards a church as an entity having rights distinct from those of its members, provides a very natural vehicle to effect this sort of communal as distinct from purely individual claim. And the Free Exercise protects the rights of religious communities as communities, as associations, in corporate form, not just the rights of individuals.
Fortunately, nobody gives a damn (pun intended) about your assent, based as it is on complete legal and historical ignorance.
Of course, you would never argue that utilization of the corporate form vitiates the rights of media outlets.
Nieporent, not only would I argue that, I have done it at least twice on this blog. Media can run very well as proprietorships or partnerships, so long as they do not become ambitious to acquire other businesses run otherwise. To put things on that basis would be a useful counter to those who argue hypocrisy for media if they oppose constitutional rights for per-share voting corporations, which I do.