Court Opinion

ID: 9461369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:12:51.228819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:01.618310
License: Public Domain

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I would not hesitate for a moment to join my brothers in finding an employer liable for imposing or attempting to impose “forced religious conformity.” This is not such a case. Title VII forbids, inter alia, employment discrimination based on religion. In this context discrimination implies that some employment-related penalty or disadvantage has been imposed on an employee or a job applicant. Because Southwestern claimed, and the district judge found, that appellant was not fired, to prove discrimination here Mrs. Young needed to show that her employer required or tolerated practices so inconsistent with her religious beliefs that she could not continue working and remain true to those beliefs. That is, she had to show that she was “constructively” discharged.1
As I understand it, the majority bases its constructive discharge finding on (1) the company’s admitted practice of holding monthly business meetings at which the first several minutes are devoted to *146a religious “sermonette”, and (2) a single statement by Mrs. Young’s immediate supervisor Mr. Bostain that company policy required attendance at the devotional portion of the meetings. In my view this holding expands the constructive discharge doctrine beyond its proper scope in proceedings of this kind. I assume for present purposes that if mandatory attendance at the devotional was in fact settled company policy, Mrs. Young would have been entitled to claim a constructive discharge. During the trial of this case, however, Southwestern’s vice president and personnel director stated without contradiction that the company did not require attendance at the devotional portion of the company meeting. He further testified that no penalty attached for failure to attend and that no person had ever been denied any employment benefit because of his or her refusal to be present during the sermonette. Unfortunately, he also related that only the higher ranking officers of the company knew of this policy and that the company had failed to publicize it throughout the organization. This accounts for Bostain’s statement to Mrs. Young that attendance at the devotional was mandatory.
For several reasons I think that the better course is to deny the applicability of the constructive discharge doctrine when, as here, the employee can prove only mistaken (although understandable) reliance on an erroneous statement of company policy by a less than authoritative company source. Employment discrimination based on religion is a serious charge, and I believe that basic fairness alone demands that a constructive discharge resulting from this alleged discrimination should rest on a foundation more secure than a breakdown in bureaucratic communication. In addition, allowing an employee to claim constructive discharge only after requesting an authoritative ruling from the company management would encourage private settlement of employment disputes. Such private settlements are not just desirable from the standpoint of judicial caseloads, cf. Penn v. Schlesinger, 5 Cir. 1973, 490 F.2d 700, 713 n. 5 (Godbold, J., dissenting), dissent adopted 5 Cir. 1974, 497 F.2d 970 (en banc), but they also seem in harmony with Congress’s intent in enacting Title VII — for example, before the E.E.O.C. may take formal enforcement action it must investigate and attempt to settle the dispute by “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (1974). Moreover, requiring an inquiry concerning company policy as a condition of claiming constructive discharge would serve the highly desirable purpose of either putting the employer on notice of the need to accommodate its employee’s religious beliefs or at least of establishing the company’s determination to persist in the challenged practice.
This case typifies the anomalous results produced by the contrary rule. At the time appellant left Southwestern there remained approximately one month before the next business meeting. Had Mrs. Young used this time to inquire whether her branch manager had correctly stated company policy, the record gives no reason to doubt that she would have learned that attendance was not required, and this problem would never have reached the courts. Although the company is by no means blameless in the matter, appellant’s precipitous departure also made accommodation impossible. Admittedly, Mrs. Young had no particular reason to suspect that Bostain did not know company policy. I would simply hold that in cases like this one any “emotional discomfort [from] waiting to be fired” is insufficient grounds to overweigh the substantial benefits of requiring as a precondition to constructive discharge the painless process of confirming the existence of the offensive company rule.2
*147For the reasons stated, I would affirm the district court’s finding that Mrs. Young failed to prove a constructive discharge.

. This case is distinguishable from the normal run of constructive discharge cases because it is a company policy rather than a company practice that appellant claims required her to voluntarily resign. Mrs. Young apparently does not contend that the mere holding of the devotional offended her sensibilities to the extent that she could not continue to work for Southwestern. Rather, it is the company’s ostensible mandatory attendance policy that she found incompatible with further employment.

. In EEOC Decision No. 72-1114, Feb. 18, 1972, 4 FEP Cases 842, the Commission wrote
Clearly, an employer is responsible for the actions of its supervisors. Charging Parties had no obligation to inform higher level *147management personnel of their supervisor’s conduct in order for Respondent to be bound by the requirements of Title VII.
Although vicarious liability and other principal-agent rules have their proper place in our legal system, as indicated i see little to gain and much to lose by applying them mechanically in the context of Title VII.