Religious Accommodation Standard Easy to Meet

Truck Driver Refused to Work Overnight with Women Drivers
Mere Possibility of Undue Hardship Enough
Undue Hardship Easy to Meet under Title VII, but Difficult under ADA

To prove that a religious accommodation creates an undue hardship, an employer only has to show that it would incur something more than a nominal cost. As this case shows, this standard is relatively easy to meet.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs. However, an accommodation is required only as long as it does not cause an undue hardship, which is defined as anything that creates more than a de minimis cost. The term “de minimis” has been interpreted to mean a nominal or minimal cost. A recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates just how low the threshold is for an employer to show undue hardship. In Weber v. Roadway Express, Inc., No. 98-11468 (5th Cir. 1/7/00), the employer successfully argued that it did not have to accommodate a driver who refused to drive overnight with a female driver. The court determined that the “mere possibility” that accommodating him would cause an adverse affect on his coworkers created an undue hardship for the employer.

The employee in this case was hired as a long-haul truck driver. Two weeks after being hired, he discovered that he could have female partners for the overnight runs. Because of his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s witness, the employee notified his supervisor that he could not accept these overnight assignments with a woman who was not his wife. The supervisor replied that working with women was part of his job and that, if he could not, he would not receive any assignments. The employee then filed suit against the employer, claiming that it did not accommodate his religious beliefs as required by Title VII. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that not assigning the employee female partners would be an undue hardship. The employee asked the Fifth Circuit to reconsider the decision.

The employee argued that the employer did not meet the undue hardship standard for three reasons: (1) the employer’s objections to the accommodation were based on “unlikely hypothetical situations”; (2) the employer allowed other drivers to skip assignments for secular reasons; and (3) the employer did not make a good faith effort to accommodate the employee. The Fifth Circuit addressed each point, upholding the lower court’s decision.

First, the court determined that skipping over the employee so that he would not be assigned a female partner would create more than a de minimis expense. In particular, since the employer had a system of making assignments based primarily on seniority, the accommodation could adversely affect other employees with respect to their compensation and time off. For example, the employee who takes his run might have to accept a shorter run or have less time off between runs as a result of the substitution. The court also pointed out that the employer’s concerns were not “too speculative” and that the “mere possibility” that the accommodation would have an adverse impact on coworkers was sufficient to create an undue hardship. According to the court, the employer did not have to “wait until it felt the effects” of the employee’s proposal by actually trying the accommodation.

The court also rejected the argument that the employer’s past practice of allowing some drivers to skip assignments for secular reasons indicated that the employee could be easily accommodated. In particular, the employer had allowed some drivers to submit a “refuse to ride” letter when they did not want to be paired with other specific drivers and occasionally allowed other drivers to be passed over because of emergencies or personal reasons. The court explained that these exceptions were allowed only if business circumstances permitted them, whereas the accommodations for the employee in question would be inflexible and would regularly affect the scheduling preferences of other employees.

Finally, the court addressed the contention that the employer should have made a good faith effort to accommodate the employee. According to the court, an employer is not required to make an effort to accommodate if it can show that any accommodation would impose an undue hardship. In this case, the employer established that the only suggested accommodation (allowing the employee to skip over assignments involving women) would impose more than a de minimis cost.

This decision shows how reluctant courts are to impose accommodations that require employers to force changes in coworkers’ schedules or that affect their pay. Accommodations accepted by courts generally have included changes that do not affect coworkers, such as the use of unpaid leave for religious observations and the wearing of religious garb. In addition, other courts have determined that an employer only has to provide an effective accommodation, not the one preferred by the employee or applicant. Even though the standard for undue hardship is easy to meet, most experts agree that it is better policy to at least try to accommodate an employee’s religious requests rather than rely on the de minimis test to refuse accommodations.

Employers also should note that the undue hardship test for religious accommodation under Title VII drastically differs from the test for accommodating disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, for an employer to claim undue hardship (the same term used in Title VII, but with a very different meaning), it must show that the accommodation would cause a significant difficulty or expense. This standard is more rigorous and difficult to meet than the de minimis standard for religious accommodation.