Court Opinion

ID: 9853522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:49.953627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:50.648500
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice,
with whom RABINOWITZ, Justice, joins, dissenting in part.
While I agree with most of the opinion, I am not convinced that a sufficient effort was made to comply with the duty to accommodate. In Yott v. North American Rockwell Corp., 428 F.Supp. 763 (C.D.Cal. 1977), under similar circumstances, the worker offered to receive a salary reduced by the amount of dues he would otherwise pay to the union. It would then be left to the union and the employer to determine whether additional payments equivalent to the union dues would be paid by the employer to the union. I agree with the statement in McDaniel v. Essex International, Inc., 571 F.2d 338, 344 (6th Cir. 1978), that the legislation requires a balancing between the religious needs of the individual and the legitimate business needs of both the employer and the union. I also am mindful of the considerations eloquently expressed by Justice Marshall in his dissent in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 96-97, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 2283, 53 L.Ed.2d 113, 139 (1977):
What makes this ease most tragic, however, is not that respondent Hardison has been needlessly deprived of his livelihood simply because he chose to follow the dictates of his conscience. Nor is the tragedy of the case exhausted by the impact it will have on thousands of Americans like Hardison who could be forced to live’ on welfare as the price they must pay for worshipping their God. The ultimate tragedy is that despite Congress’ best efforts, one of this Nation’s pillars of strength — our hospitality to religious diversity — has been seriously eroded, (footnote omitted)
I am not convinced that suitable effort has been made to explore all alternatives in this case before reaching the drastic result of depriving Wondzell of his employment.