Court Opinion

ID: 9576579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:26:05.770943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:04.606552
License: Public Domain

DISSENT
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion affirms based on Reed’s failure to demonstrate either discharge or discipline as part of his prima facie case against his union — a union, it is worth noting, that does not have the power to discharge or to discipline. I do not think either Title VII or our past holdings requires such a showing. An adverse employment action should be all that is required to establish a prima facie case for a religious accommodation claim, and certainly no more than that should be required in a claim against a union. The UAW required Reed to pay more dues because of the religious nature of his objection to the union, and this increased payment was an adverse employment action. I would therefore hold that the increased payment was sufficient to establish the final element of Reed’s prima facie case.
I also disagree with the concurring opinion’s analysis of the reasonableness of the accommodation. Because I do not agree with either ground offered for affirming the district court’s judgment, I respectfully dissent.
I.
Religious accommodation claims against employers arise under the same statutory provisions as other Title VII religions discrimination claims. Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice to “to fail or refuse to hire or 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)(l). Religion “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). “The intent and effect of this definition was to make it an unlawful employment practice under § 703(a)(1) [42 U.S.C. *584§ 2000e-2(a)(l) ] for an employer not to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, for the religious practices of his employees and prospective employees.” TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977). Section 2000e-2(a)(l) also provides the basis for religious disparate treatment claims. See Tepper v. Potter, 505 F.3d 508, 515 (6th Cir.2007).
Despite the single statutory source for Title VII religious discrimination claims, our past decisions have incorrectly suggested a different level of harm is required to establish a prima facie disparate treatment claim based on religion than is required to establish a prima facie religious accommodation claim. A disparate treatment claim requires the employee show, among other things, “that he experienced an adverse employment action.” Tepper, 505 F.3d at 515. An adverse employment action is “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). A religious accommodation claim, meanwhile, appears to require a plaintiff to make a higher showing that “he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.” Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir.1987).
This distinction between the amount of harm required under a disparate treatment theory and under a religious accommodation theory is not required by the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). It is also not required by our past holdings, though it is true that our religious accommodation precedents do use the “discharge or discipline” language. That is not surprising, because those decisions invoking the third element of the religious accommodation prima facie case almost invariably involve discharged employees. See Virts v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 285 F.3d 508, 515 (6th Cir.2002) (discharged employee); Hall v. Baptist Mem’l Health Care Corp., 215 F.3d 618, 623 (6th Cir.2000) (discharged employee); Cooper v. Oak Rubber Co., 15 F.3d 1375, 1378 (6th Cir.1994) (discharged employee); McGuire v. Gen. Motors Corp., 956 F.2d 607, 609 (6th Cir.1992); Smith, 827 F.2d at 1084 (discharged employee). These cases therefore did not need to address whether a claim could survive without showing that the plaintiff had been discharged.
Our two most recent religious accommodation cases illustrate only that the prima facie case cannot be satisfied without showing some adverse employment action. In Tepper, we found that the plaintiff had failed to establish the prima facie case because the only action taken against him was that his employer required Tepper to use unpaid leave for his observance of the Sabbath. 505 F.3d at 514. We noted that this not only failed to establish the prima facie case for religious accommodation, it failed to establish any adverse action at all. See id. at 516. Similarly, in Goldmeier v. Allstate Ins. Co., the plaintiffs quit then-jobs before experiencing any adverse effect from their employer’s failure to accommodate their religious beliefs. 337 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir.2003). Tepper and Goldmeier therefore both involve plaintiffs that have not shown any adverse action, much less either discharge or discipline. They do not address whether a claim could succeed upon a showing of an adverse employment action other than discharge or discipline.
Other circuits have stated that an adverse employment action short of discharge or discipline is sufficient to establish the prima facie case for religious accommodation. See Peterson v. Hew*585lett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 606 (9th Cir.2004); EEOC v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Puerto Rico, 279 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir.2002); EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., 94 F.3d 314, 317 (7th Cir.1996); see also Bowles v. New York City Transit Auth., 285 Fed.Appx. 812, 813 (2d Cir.2008); Ali v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 8 Fed.Appx. 156, 158-59 (4th Cir.2001). Indeed, I can find no decision in any circuit in which an appellate court found a plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case where the plaintiff had demonstrated a materially adverse employment action.
Moreover, our precedents allude to the sufficiency of an adverse employment action in religious accommodation claims. In Goldmeier, we rejected the appellants’ argument that they need not show any harm in order to satisfy the prima facie case: “neither this court, nor any of its sister circuits with substantively parallel religious discrimination jurisprudence, has ever endorsed the Goldmeiers’ conclusion that no adverse employment action need be shown to sustain a prima facie case.” 337 F.3d at 637. In Tepper, this court equated the “discharge or discipline” element of the religious accommodation prima facie case with the “materially adverse employment action” requirement of a disparate treatment claim. 505 F.3d at 516.
This case is the first in our circuit to squarely present the question of whether a plaintiff can satisfy the prima facie case for a religious accommodation claim by showing an adverse employment action without showing discharge or discipline. I would hold that a plaintiff should be able to succeed on such a showing. While discharge or discipline (assuming it is sufficiently severe) will always constitute a materially adverse employment action, there is no legal or logical reason why a plaintiff who suffers a materially adverse employment action must also show discharge or discipline.
II.
Further, even assuming that our precedents compel this court to require a showing of discharge or discipline in a religious accommodation suit against an employer, there is no reason to extend that requirement to claims brought against unions. As the majority opinion acknowledges, “the prima facie elements of a religious accommodation case do not always fit nicely into a case against a labor union.” There is a reason they do not fit nicely: the artificially high standard that we have previously suggested for a prima facie case against an employer simply can never be met in a claim against a union. As a union can neither discharge nor discipline an employee, applying the “discharge or discipline” element in claims against unions would foreclose all such claims. The majority opinion attempts to avoid this result by simply noting that there is no adverse employment action in this case. As I discuss below, I think it is clear that Reed did suffer an adverse employment action. Even putting that to the side, however, I cannot see how we can avoid entirely the question of what level of harm a plaintiff must show in a claim against a union. We cannot hold that Reed failed to meet the prima facie case without any indication of what that prima facie case is.
Indeed, Title VII itself suggests there may be a difference between claims against employers and claims against unions. A religious accommodation claim against employers is rooted in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). See Hardison, 432 U.S. at 73, 97 S.Ct. 2264. The Supreme Court has held that the language of that section — “ ‘hire,’ ‘discharge,’ ‘compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,’ ‘employment opportunities,’ and *586‘status as an employee’ — explicitly limit the scope of that provision to actions that affect employment or alter the conditions of the workplace.” Burlington N. and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 62, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). The same language does not exist in Title VII’s union provision. Instead, it is an unlawful practice for a union to “exclude or ... expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his ... religion,” id. § 2000e-2(c)(1), or to “cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.” Id. § 2000e-2(c)(3). Notably, the phrase “otherwise discriminate against” is similar to that in Title VII’s retaliation provision, which the Supreme Court has held is more expansive than the language in the provision giving rise to disparate treatment claims. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 63-64, 126 S.Ct. 2405.
Thus, even if this case does not provide an opportunity to clarify exactly what standard should apply in religious accommodation claims against unions (which I submit it does), the difference in statutory language should at least give us pause before we extend the “discharge or discipline” requirement to claims against unions. Add this difference in statutory language to the practical reality that a “discharge or discipline” requirement would essentially bar religious accommodation claims against unions, and it is clear that we should not impose the “discharge or discipline” requirement in this context.
III.
As discussed above, I believe that a materially adverse employment action is the appropriate standard for all religious accommodation claims. Reed satisfied that standard. The UAW required Reed to make larger payments than secular objectors. This disparity constitutes an advei’se employment action. Under Title VII, an employment action must amount to “a materially adverse change” in the terms or conditions of employment to be actionable. Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 885 (6th Cir.1996); see also Mitchell v. Vanderbilt Univ., 389 F.3d 177, 182 (6th Cir.2004). Notably, the Supreme Court stated that such an action will “in most cases inflict[ ] direct economic harm.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 762, 118 S.Ct. 2257. The economic effect does not have to be large in order to be an adverse employment action. See White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 794, 802 (6th Cir.2004) (en banc). A differential in pay establishes an adverse employment action. Fuhr v. School Dist. of City of Hazel Park, 364 F.3d 753, 758 (6th Cir.2004).
The UAW required that Reed donate the full amount of union dues to charity rather than the lower amount political objectors must pay the union. If Reed had a secular objection to the union, the amount Reed would have to pay would decrease. This is a direct economic effect that resulted in Reed receiving less net income. As such, the ongoing higher payment the union requires of religious objectors constitutes an adverse employment action.
IV.
The majority opinion seeks to minimize the significance of this economic burden by relying on Tepper. Yet Tepper presented a significantly different set of facts. In Tepper, the plaintiff sought days off to observe religious holidays. 505 F.3d at 512. His employer originally accommodated him, but later rescinded the accommodation. Id. His employer continued to permit the plaintiff to use unpaid leave for all of his holidays. Id. The plaintiff alleged that using unpaid leave decreased his pay. Id. We dismissed this argument, noting that “[t]he Supreme Court has stated that ‘the direct effect of unpaid leave is merely a loss of income for the period the *587employee is not at work; such an exclusion has no direct effect upon either employment opportunities or job status.’ ” Id. at 514. We then concluded that “Tepper is simply not being paid for the time he does not work.” Id. The same cannot be said for Reed.
Nor am I persuaded that the fact the adverse employment action in this case occurs as part of an accommodation should alter the analysis of the prima facie case. There is no indication in our case law that the prima facie case is limited in this way. In Tepper, for example, we found that the prima facie case was not satisfied because the accommodation did not harm the plaintiff — not because the harm to the plaintiff was part of an accommodation. See 505 F.3d at 514.
Moreover, the majority opinion’s arbitrary distinction between employer/union practices that “count” for the prima facie religious accommodation case and those that do not places religious employees in an unavoidable bind. If an employer or union offers the employee an accommodation that adversely affects the terms and conditions of his or her employment, the employee can do nothing but lose. If the employee accepts the accommodation, then, under the majority opinion’s view, the employee has acquiesced in the discrimination and abandoned any hope of a remedy. Meanwhile, if an employee rejects the accommodation, the employee not only puts his or her employment in jeopardy, the employee also runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s instruction that the employer, not the employee, chooses the accommodation. See Amonta Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 67-69, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). The majority opinion does not — and I think cannot— explain what an employee placed in this position should do in order to appropriately assert his or her rights under Title VII.
V.
I also find the concurring opinion unpersuasive in its analysis of the reasonableness of the accommodation at issue here. Unlike the concurring opinion, I do not think it is enough to say that Reed’s objection is different from other accommodated objectors. Though this is undoubtedly true, it does not explain why the accommodation is reasonable.
While the union does not have to use the accommodation proffered by the employee, the union must offer a reasonable accommodation. See E.E. O.C. v. Univ. of Detroit, 904 F.2d 331, 334 (6th Cir.1990). I would find the accommodation here unreasonable for two reasons: the union cannot require a payment of this size from a nonmember, and the accommodation is discriminatory.
The Supreme Court has held that unions may exact from objecting nonmembers “only those fees and dues necessary to performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues.” Commc’n Workers of Am. v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, 762-63, 108 S.Ct. 2641, 101 L.Ed.2d 634 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on this, the Sixth Circuit has observed that Beck “limit[ed] the amount of dues a union can charge a non-union member.” United Food and Commercial Workers Local 951 v. Mulder, 31 F.3d 365, 367 (6th Cir.1994). If a union cannot charge an objecting nonmember more than the Beck amount, it seems to me that there is no basis for offering an accommodation in excess of that amount. As Reed is an objecting nonmember, it seems to me that a reasonable accommodation should be based on the amount that the union can require from objecting nonmembers under Beck.1
*588In this regard, I find persuasive the district court opinion in O’Brien v. City of Springfield. Relying on a state statute and a state regulation that provided a rule similar to the rule established in Beck2 a Massachusetts district court held that requiring a donation equal to full union dues was “a per se unreasonable accommodation.” 319 F.Supp.2d 90, 107 (D.Mass. 2003). It further explained that a union “is not entitled to charge whatever amount it wishes to someone making a charitable substitution.” Id. at 106. The same reasoning should apply under Beck. The union should not be able to require objecting nonmembers to pay any more than Beck permits.3 As Reed is an objecting nonmember, I would find that the union’s attempt to force Reed to donate the full union dues amount rather than the amount paid by Beck objectors is unreasonable.
Further, the accommodation is discriminatory. The union admits that it prefers the elevated amount because “this arrangement does not create any financial incentive for employees to claim religious objection in order to reduce their financial obligations.” Response Br. at 32. The value of the higher amount is precisely its deterrence of other members and nonmembers from asserting their religious objections. The union offers no other reason for requiring the elevated payments, and I cannot think of a nondiscriminatory reason for requiring religious objectors such as Reed to pay more in order to accommodate their objections. I would therefore find the amount the union requires Reed to pay is discriminatory. As such, the accommodation should also be deemed unreasonable under Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook. See 479 U.S. 60, 71, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (“Such an arrangement would display a discrimination against religious practices that is the antithesis of reasonableness.”).
VI.
There is no question that the only way Reed could avoid the conflict between his religious beliefs and the UAW’s requirements was through a payment greater than that required of other objectors. I would find this sufficient to establish the *589third prong of the prima facie case for religious accommodation. I also would find the accommodation offered by the union unreasonable because the union lacks the authority to require such a large payment and the accommodation discriminates against religious objectors. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. Although Reed did not articulate the argument in quite this fashion, he did raise a *588functionally identical argument in his briefs. Rather than phrasing the argument in terms of the amount the union can require him to pay, he argued that Beck gave objectors the right to choose not to pay the portion of union dues used for political purposes.

. The union notes that, unlike under Beck, the Massachusetts law does not permit unions to charge any nonmembers more than the agency service fee. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150E, § 12; Mass. Regs.Code tit. 456, § 17.04. For the reasons given below in footnote 3, I do not think this distinction alters the analysis of the reasonableness of the accommodation in this case.

. The union argues that, because nonmembers who do not object can be required to pay the full amount, the relevant benchmark should be the full dues amount. However, there is absolutely no dispute here that Reed has made his objections known to the union. Therefore, the relevant amount should be the Beck amount, not the full dues amount. So long as an objector makes his or her objection known, the union cannot charge the full dues amount under Beck. See Beck, 487 U.S. at 762-63, 108 S.Ct. 2641; Int’l Assoc. of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 774, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961). What the union can charge other employees should therefore be irrelevant in determining the accommodation for Reed. Rather, the relevant standard should be based on the status of the employee in question. It would likewise be fruitless for an employer to argue that, when reviewing the termination of a for-cause employee, the court should consider that an employer can fire an at-will employee for any reason. Instead, what matters is the for-cause status of the employee in question. Similarly, the union should not point to the dues it can require other employees to pay; what matters is the amount it could otherwise require Reed to pay.