Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02107/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02107-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BILLY W. LEE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

~J~~~~ T@~~lff.Ult ~~k~- ~P R 2 S 1994 

n.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 93-2107 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-1254-JC/JHG) 

Mitchell A. Tyner (John A. Budagher, Budagher and Associates, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the brief), Silver Spring, 

Maryland, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. 

John v. Jansonius, of Haynes and Boone, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, for 

the Defendant-Appellee. 

Before WHITE, Associate Justice (Ret.),* TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit 

Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

. 

* The Honorable Byron R. White, Associate Justice of the United 

States Supreme Court, (Ret.), sitting by designation, pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 294(a). 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Billy W. Lee appeals from the district court's 

grant of summary judgment denying Mr. Lee's claim that defendant, 

ABF Freight System, Inc. ("ABF"), discharged him in violation of 

the religious accommodation clause of Title VII of·the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(j) and 2000e-2(a). We 

exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

ABF hired Mr. Lee in 1986 as a road driver to transport 

freight between ABF facilities in various cities and states. The 

road drivers at the ABF facility in Albuquerque, such as Mr. Lee, 

are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 

Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 

492 ("Local 492"). All wages, hours, and terms and conditions of 

employment for road drivers are covered by a collective bargaining 

agreement. Drivers who have sufficient seniority can select a 

"bid run" -- a fixed schedule of trips between two cities. Under 

the Albuquerque Dispatch Rules negotiated between ABF and Local 

492, drivers who do not have the opportunity to select a "bid run" 

are placed on the "Extra Board." The Extra Board operates on a 

"first-in/first-out" basis. The dispatch rules require drivers on 

the Extra Board to "pull" any run for which they are called, 

provided they have not already completed the number of hours 

necessary to be excused. ABF cannot skip the order of assignment 

on the Extra Board without violating the labor contract and 

incurring a penalty. Drivers are entitled to a twenty-four hour 

break after completing six "tours of duty" (a tour of duty is one 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 2 
\ 

i 

leg of a round trip) . Six tours of duty per week is the standard 

expected of drivers at ABF. 

Mr. Lee is a Seventh-day Adventist. His religious beliefs 

prohibit work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. In May 

1990, Mr. Lee told ABF he would not work at any time that 

conflicted with his observance of the Sabbath. ABF then contacted 

Local 492 to request an exception to the dispatching rules to 

exempt Mr. Lee from a run that might require him to be on duty 

during his Sabbath. Local 492 refused to permit an exception for 

Mr. Lee. Next, ABF proposed a system under the labor contract by 

which Mr. Lee could minimize the occasions on which he might be 

called to work on his Sabbath. ABF proposed that Mr. Lee call ABF 

on Saturday mornings to place his name on the Extra Board and 

position himself so that he would be among the first drivers 

dispatched following sundown on Saturday. ABF believed this 

approach would allow Mr. Lee to complete six tours of duty prior 

to sundown on Friday and entitle him to a twenty-four hour break. 

ABF stated that this proposal, combined with Mr. Lee's vacation 

days, would excuse Mr. Lee from most situations when he would be· 

called to work on his Sabbath. Without attempting ABF's proposed 

accommodation, Mr. Lee rejected it because it did not absolutely 

guarantee that he would be free from work on each observance of 

his Sabbath. The only accommodation proposed by Mr. Lee, prior to 

the commencement of this litigation, required that ABF guarantee 

that he be excused from work from Thursday morning at 6:00 a.m. 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 3 
I 

~ 

until sundown on Saturday in order to ensure that he would 

complete his run prior to sundown Friday. 1 

Mr. Lee's position on the Extra Board was reached on Friday, 

June 8, Friday, June 22, and Friday, June 29, 1990 and he was not 

available to work. In accordance with the labor contract, Mr. Lee 

was issued a warning letter each time. On July 7, 2 Mr. Lee was 

again unavailable to work and was discharged. Mr. Lee's discharge 

was grieved pursuant to the labor contract and was reduced to a 

suspension without pay. Mr. Lee returned to work and, on 

Saturday, December 15, 1990, Mr. Lee's position on the Extra Board 

was reached and again he was unavailable for work. Under the 

ter.ms of the labor contract, he was discharged for repeated 

unavailability for dispatch. 

Mr. Lee brought suit against ABF under § 701(j) of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j), alleging religious 

discrimination. The district court subsequently granted ABF's 

motion for summary judgment on Mr. Lee's claims. 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Standard of Review 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the 

same standard applied by the district court. Applied Genetics 

Int'l. Inc. ~First Affiliated Sec .. Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 

1 In his brief opposing ABF's Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. 

Lee offered several additional accommodations. 

2 The parties' briefs differ on whether Mr. Lee's discharge 

occurred on July 5, 7 or 9. The difference is immaterial to the 

resolution of this case. 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 4 
"\. 

I 

(lOth Cir. 1990). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions 

on file, together with .the affidavits, if any, show that there is 

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party 

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56{c). "When applying this standard, we examine the factual 

record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most 

favorable to the party opposing summary judgment." Applied 

Genetics, 912 F.2d at 1241. "However, the nonmoving party may not 

rest on its pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing 

that there is a genuine issue for trial as to those dispositive 

matters for whidh it carries the burden of proof." Id. {citing 

Celotex Corp.~ Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 {1986)). An issue of 

material fact is "genuine" if a "reasonable jury could return a 

verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 {1986). "The mere existence of a 

scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will 

be insufficient" to defeat a properly supported motion for summary 

judgment. Id. at 252. 

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to "discharge any 

individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual 

with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges ~ 

of employment, because of such individual's ... religion." 42 

u.s.c. § 2000e-2(a) (1). "Religion" is defined to include only 

those "aspects of religious observance and practice" that an 

employer is able to "reasonably accommodate . . . without undue 

5 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 5 
' 

hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e(j). 

For purposes of its summary judgment motion, ABF conceded 

that Mr. Lee had established a prima facie case of religious 

discrimination. Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie 

case, the burden then shifts to the employer to show "reasonable 

accommodation or [to show] that reasonable accommodation would be 

an undue hardship. 11 Pinsker Y.:.. Joint Dist. Number 28J, 735 F.2d 

388, 390 (lOth Cir. 1984); see Toledo Y.:.. Nobel-Sysco. Inc., 892 

F.2d 1481, 1486 (lOth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 948 

(1990). In this case the issue is whether ABF's efforts to adjust 

Mr. Lee's dispatch position and work schedule in response to his 

religious beliefs fulfils its obligation under § 70l(j) to 

"reasonably accommodate to an employee's religious 

observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of 

the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). 

Here, in addition to the programs already in place 

accommodating employees' desires to be free from work on certain 

days, ABF took several additional steps to specifica~ly 

accommodate Mr. Lee. First, ABF dispatches its drivers according 

to a seniority system governed by the collective bargaining 

agreement which allowed senior drivers to bid on runs that operate 

·' 

on a fixed schedule. The most senior drivers can select the days 

on which they prefer to work, while the junior drivers are 

dispatched based on their position on the Extra Board. ABF's 

method of allocating "runs" based on seniority was itself a 

6 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 6 
3 significant accommodation of all of its employees. Second, ABF 

met, unsuccessfully, with officials of Local 492 to seek agreement 

to special extra-contractual scheduling terms for Mr. Lee . 

Following its unsuccessful efforts to accommodate Mr. Lee outside 

the collective bargaining agreement , ABF attempted to accommodate 

Mr. Lee ' s confli ct within the confines o f the labor agreement. 

Third, ABF met wit h Mr. Lee to develop a plan to accommodate his 

Sabbath request. ABF suggested a plan in which Mr. Lee could 

manipulate his position on the Extra Board to maximize the 

occasions when he would complete six tours of duty prior to 

sundown on Friday . Following six tours of duty, Extra Board 

drivers are entitled to a twenty-four hour break which would 

accommodate Mr. Lee ' s observance of his Sabbath. Finally, the 

labor contract provided Mr . Lee, as a three-year-employee, with 

two weeks of vacation time which he could use to further insulate 

himself from work on his Sabbath. 

Mr. Lee rejected ABF's proposals because they did not 

guarantee that he would always be free from work on every 

observance of his Sabbath . Title VII does not guarantee, however, 

that the employee will be given the accommodation of his choice . 

Ansonia Bd. of Edu c . ~ Philbrook, 479 U. S . 60, 68-69 (1986) ; 

Pinsker, 735 F.2d at 390 . The defendant's efforts to reach a 

reasonable accommodation triggered Mr. Lee ' s duty to cooperate. 

To ledo, 892 F . 2d at 1488; Brener, 671 F.2d at 146 ("employee has a 

3 "[A]n employer's reasonable accommodation of an employee ' s 

religious observances need not be initiated in response to the 

employee ' s protest." Brener~ Diagnostic Ctr. Hosp., 671 F.2d 

141, 144 n.2 (5th Cir. 1982); see Trans World Airlines . Inc. v. 

Hardison, 432 U. S . 63 , 78 (1977). ------

7 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 7 
correlative duty to make a good faith attempt to satisfy his needs 

through means offered by the employer"); ChkYsler Corp. v. Mann, 

561 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1977) (where employee "will not 

attempt to accommodate his own beliefs through the means already 

available to him or cooperate with his employer in its 

conciliatory efforts, he may forego the right to have his beliefs 

accommodated"), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1039 (1978). 

We need not determine whether ABF's proposals constituted a 

"reasonable accommodation" under§ 701(j) 4 , 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j), 

because we find that all of Mr. Lee's suggested alternatives 

impose an undue hardship on ABF. 

An employer has the "statutory obligation to make reasonable 

accommodation for the religious observances of its employees, 

short of incurring an undue hardship." Hardison, 432 U.S. at 75. 

To require an employer "to bear more than a de minimis cost in 

order to [accommodate an employee's religious beliefs] is an undue 

hardship." Id. at 84. Reasonable accommodation does not mean 

that "an employer must deny the shift and job preference of some 

employees . . . in order to accommodate or prefer the religious 

needs of others." Id. at 81. Nor does Title VII require an 

4 Mr. Lee now asserts that ABF's alternatives did not qualify 

as a "reasonable accommodation" because they did not eliminat~ the 

conflict between his religious practices and his employment 

requirements. At least two circuits have determined that, under 

Ansonia Bd. of Educ. ~Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (1986), a 

reasonable accommodation is one that eliminates the employee's 

conflict between his religious practices and work requirements. Cooper~ Oak Rubber Co., 15 F.3d 1375, 1994 WL 33599, at *5 (6th 

Cir. Feb. 9, 1994); Wright v. Runyon, 2 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 

1993), cert. denied, 114 s. Ct. 1077 (1994). In this case we do 

not decide whether a reasonable accommodation is one which must 

completely eliminate the employee's conflict. 

8 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 8 
employer to violate a valid labor agreement to accommodate an 

employee. Id. at 79. "Any cost in efficiency or wage expenditure 

that is more than de minimis constitutes undue hardship." Mann ~ 

Frank, 7 F.3d 1365, 1370 (8th Cir. 1993). The cost of hiring an 

additional worker or the loss of production that results from not 

replacing a worker who is unavailable due to a religious conflict 

can amount to undue hardship. See Hardison, 432 U.S. at 84. 

Mr. Lee asserts that the district court erred in finding that 

the proposed alternative accommodations would have imposed an 

undue hardship on ABF. Mr. Lee argues that ABF could have used a 

"voluntary runaround" to skip over his position on the Extra Board 

when it coincided with Saturday work. By skipping over Mr. Lee, 

however, the next driver on the Extra Board would have to be 

dispatched to cover Mr. Lee's run, effectively cutting short the 

subsequent drivers' time off. This practice would violate the 

provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, subject ABF to 

a potential fine and would clearly impose more than a de minimis 

cost on ABF. Next, Mr. Lee suggests he should be allowed to 

perform less than six tours of duty per week. This accommodation 

would mean Mr. Lee would function as a part-time employee but 

receive full-time benefits, resulting in a significant cost to 

ABF. See Cook~ Chrysler CotP., 981 F.2d 336, 339 (8th Cir. ~ 

1992). Mr. Lee's proposal that he· reimburse ABF for the 

additional cost incurred by allowing him to work fewer than six 

tours of duty per week does not eliminate the cost to ABF, nor 

does reimbursement address the problem o~ allocating another 

driver to perform Mr. Lee's duty. Moreover, ABF is constrained by 

9 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 9 
the National Labor Relations Act from unilaterally negotiating a 

separate agreement with Mr. Lee separate from the collective 

bargaining agreement. Mr. Lee contends that ABF should have 

transferred him to a position which did not conflict with his 

Sabbath. However, ABF cannot transfer a driver to another 

bargaining unit without violating the collective bargaining 

agreement. Further, following a transfer, Mr. Lee would lose his 

accrued seniority and be in a weaker position to avoid work on his 

Sabbath. See Hardison, 432 U.S. at 83 n.14. Finally, Mr. Lee's 

proposal that ABF bring in a "foreign" driver to cover Mr. Lee's 

tour of duty on his Sabbath would result in a significant 

additional cost to ABF. ABF would, in addition to the expenses 

associated with Mr. Lee's employment, pay the cost of bringing the 

driver from another city. Additionally, due to the uncertainty 

regarding when Mr. Lee's position on the Extra Board would 

coincide with his observance of his Sabbath, it would be extremely 

difficult to anticipate the need for the foreign driver in advance 

of Mr. Lee's absence. After reviewing Mr. Lee's proposed 

alternative accommodations, we agree with the district court that 

they all impose more than a de minimis cost on ABF. 

III. CONCLUSION 

ABF has presented uncontroverted evidence that all Mr. Lee's 

proposed accommodations to guarantee that he would be free from 

duty on his Sabbath impose more than a de minimis cost on ABF. 

For that reason, we affirm the district court's order granting 

summary judgment in favor of ABF. 

10 

Appellate Case: 93-2107 Document: 01019292827 Date Filed: 04/26/1994 Page: 10