Opinion ID: 28908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Home Depot's Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: Home Depot argues that summary judgment in its favor is appropriate because even if George makes out her prima facie case, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its defenses. Home Depot will have a valid defense if it shows either: (1) that it offered George a reasonable accommodation or (2) that accommodating George's beliefs would subject Home Depot to undue hardship. Bruff, 244 F.3d at 500; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) (2000) (providing a defense if an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business). Home Depot has shown that accommodating George's request would present an undue hardship; George has not provided sufficient evidence in rebuttal to create a genuine factual dispute on this issue. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (noting that a genuine issue of material fact exists when there is evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e) (non-moving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial). Because we affirm the district court's judgment on the grounds that No. 02-30026 -9- accommodation would result in an undue hardship, we need not address whether Home Depot offered George a reasonable accommodation. An undue hardship exists when an employer incurs anything more than a de minimus cost to accommodate an employee's beliefs. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977); see also Bruff, 244 F.3d at 500. While the determination of what constitutes an undue hardship is case-specific, numerous cases provide guidance. In Hardison, for example, the Supreme Court held that requiring an employer to accommodate an employee's request not to work on his Sabbath constituted an undue burden because it would either leave the employer short-staffed on weekends or require it to hire additional employees to fill in. See 432 U.S. at 84-85. The Hardison Court noted that even if accommodating one employee would not be a significant burden, the likelihood that other employees would request similar accommodation could result in undue hardship. See id. at 84 n.15. The Fifth Circuit has similarly found that a religious accommodation that requires other employees to take on additional duties or change their schedules presents an undue hardship. See, e.g., Bruff, 244 F.3d at 501 (finding that accommodation would result in undue hardship because it would require other employees to assume a disproportionate workload); Weber v. No. 02-30026 -10- Roadway Express, Inc., 199 F.3d 270, 274 (5th Cir. 2000) (The mere possibility of an adverse impact on co-workers . . . is sufficient to constitute an undue hardship.); Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1988) (determining it would be an undue hardship on an employer to require employees to switch shifts). The Fifth Circuit has further noted that an employer need not actually incur costs before claiming that an accommodation would result in costs that are more than de minimus. Bruff, 244 F.3d at 501. Home Depot presents ample evidence that allowing George every Sunday off would result in an undue hardship. The kitchen and bath department was particularly busy on weekends and the greeter position was specifically created to provide more customer contact and take pressure off the designers during peak times. George was the only greeter in that department. Accommodating George would require Home Depot to either do without a greeter on Sundays or hire an additional employee to fill George's position on Sundays; both options would impose an undue hardship on Home Depot. See Hardison, 432 U.S. at 84-85 (finding that the options of either leaving TWA short-staffed or requiring TWA to hire additional employees both presented an undue hardship). Not having a greeter during peak times would place additional burdens on the designers, hampering their efficiency. See Howard v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 615 F.2d 203, No. 02-30026 -11- 206 (5th Cir. 1980) (requiring other employees to perform plaintiff's job was an undue hardship). Finally, Home Depot notes that many other employees in its large workforce could request similar accommodation, thus amplifying the hardship that accommodating George would impose on it. This argument parallels the concern in Hardison, where the Court found that the likelihood that TWA would have to give other employees Saturdays or Sundays off for religious observance if it accommodated Hardison added to TWA's hardship. See Hardison, 432 U.S. at 84 n.15. George contends that the kitchen and bath department could function without a greeter on Sundays, as it did before the Harahan Home Depot created the greeter position. George suggests that she did not need to work Sundays because other employees at the Harahan store did not work Sundays. Home Depot provided evidence that the greeter position was created to ensure customer contact at peak times, which included weekends. Home Depot's evidence that having a greeter on weekends is important to its business is sufficient to show that going without a greeter would constitute an undue hardship. See Brener v. Diagnostic Ctr. Hosp., 671 F.2d 141, 146 (5th Cir. 1982) (rejecting a pharmacist's suggestion that a hospital could do without him on Saturdays without facing an undue hardship). George also suggests that another employee might be able to No. 02-30026 -12- work in her place on weekends. George claims that some of the designers could function as greeters on Sundays. Home Depot contends that the greeter position was created to free designers to consult with customers on their projects; not having a greeter on Sundays would thwart the purpose of the position. Further, requiring the designers to take on additional duties demonstrates an undue burden. See Bruff, 244 F.3d at 501 (requiring another employee to assume a disproportionate workload [to accommodate the plaintiff] . . . is an undue hardship as a matter of law). Finally, George has not shown that any employees other than the designers could or would have traded shifts to fill her position on Sundays. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to her, George has not created a genuine issue of material fact suggesting that Home Depot could accommodate her request without incurring significant costs. Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Home Depot on its claim of undue hardship.