Court Opinion

ID: 9476732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:03:44.920954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:28.585367
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Our result is compelled by Jordan v. North Carolina National Bank, 565 F.2d 72 (4th Cir.1977). In cases where reasonable accommodation with an “absolute” demand by an employee may not be reached “without undue hardship,” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 72, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 2271, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977), such a demand “speaks its own unreasonableness and [is] thus beyond accommodation.” Jordan, 565 F.2d at 76.
The dissent contends that Jordan is distinguishable because there “the employer did make some effort to accommodate the prospective employee.” (Emphasis added.) But, in this case, the record shows more efforts by the employer to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs than those evidenced in Jordan. In Jordan, a prospective employee explained to the company’s personnel interviewer that she “would not work on Saturdays [her Sabbath],” id. at 74, and she would not accept a job unless she received a “guarantee” that she would not be asked to work on Saturdays. Id. at 75. The employer responded that “we would certainly try to accommodate ... but we couldn’t give her a formal binding guarantee.” Id. The only other effort by the employer to accommodate was an apparent offer, rejected by the employee, of work on a “trial basis, to ascertain if actually there was a problem of work on her Sabbath.” Id. at 76.
Here, the employee (Dean) “just couldn’t compromise on the Sunday work question,” declaring “I just don’t work on Sundays. It’s against what I believe in.” These views were purely personal to Dean at the time of his refusal to work, rather than a reflection of adherence to the specific teachings of his church.
It is undisputed that during the course of most of Dean’s tenure with his employer, Sunday labor was not requested. However, in 1984 increased production demand required operation of the plant six to seven days per week. When work on Sunday was necessary the supervisors initially asked for volunteers. If there were not enough volunteers, employees were detailed to work on Sunday. Dean was requested to work on Sunday on four occasions between January 22 and April 1. He refused on each occasion. On these occasions other employees were detailed to work in his place, and on one occasion his supervisor filled in for him.
The record is clear that the employer attempted within reason and in good faith to accommodate Dean. The dates in issue standing alone provide a reasonable inference that the supervisor requested Sunday work on a rotation basis, asking Dean’s assistance only once per month and requiring it of another employee when Dean refused. Only when it became evident that Dean would not compromise in any manner, after other employees had complained of his preferential treatment, after the last of four requests was made, and after Dean again refused to work on Sunday, did termination result. The employer’s efforts at accommodation were sufficient when confronted by an absolute and uncompromising position by the employee.