Skip to main content

Lawful Religious Accommodation Existed When Wal-Mart Required Employee to Use Vacation Time to Accommodate Her Religious Beliefs


Cory Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - United States District Court, Southern District of New York


Facts:  Cory Chavis ("Chavis") worked at a Wal-Mart store as an Asset Protection Manager ("APM").  For approximately six years in the position, Chavis was able to arrange her schedule to not work on Sundays.  In 2013, Wal-Mart changed its policy and required APMs to work every third Sunday.  Chavis requested a religious accommodation permitting her to not work on Sundays so she could observe the Sabbath.  Wal-Mart denied the request and was told she could either use vacation days to avoid working on Sundays or find another position that did not require any Sunday work.  For about six months, Chavis used vacation time to avoid working on Sundays.  After supervisors failed to grant her request to not work on Sundays, Chavis appealed to Wal-Mart's "Open Door" hotline.  Wal-Mart subsequently exempted Chavis from working on Sundays and restored the vacation time she had used over the prior six months.  Afterward, Chavis claimed that a number of "interactions" took place between her and her supervisors which were discriminatory and harassing, in retaliation for her accommodation request.

Chavis brought suit against Wal-Mart on the grounds that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") by unlawfully harassing her, discriminating against her on the basis of her religion, and retaliating against her for pressing her religious accommodation request.  Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment as to the claims alleged by Chavis.

Holding:  (Note, this case analysis only looks at the reasonable accommodation portion of the suit filed by Chavis)

Title VII prohibits "discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's...religion."  (Both Title VII and NYSHRL are governed by the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis:  To establish a failure to accommodate claim, a movant must establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination.  The inquiry then turns to whether the employer complied with the statutory requirement and offered a "reasonable accommodation" for the religious belief, unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship.)

In this case, it is undisputed that Chavis had a bona fide religous belief which conflicted with an employment requirement of Wal-Mart.  Chavis argued that Wal-Mart forced her to use vacation days to avoid working Sundays, which constituted "discipline".  However, the District Court pointed out that requiring an employee to use vacation days to avoid work conflicting with the employee's religious beliefs did not constitute an adverse employment action.  The Court noted that Chavis was not disciplined by Wal-Mart and did not suffer an adverse employment action between April and September of 2013 as a result of her religious conflict (she complied with her job requirements and was not demoted or had altered job responsibilities as a result of using vacation time to avoid Sunday work).  In fact, prior caselaw lent itself to the proposition that needing to use vacation time to avoid a religious conflict was not an adverse employment action because the employee is not deprived of a material benefit, but was simply choosing to utilize that benefit in a particular way.  In this case, Wal-Mart even restored the vacation time Chavis used in the preceding six months.

As well, the Court held that it was not unreasonable for Wal-Mart to require Chavis to use vacation time as a religious accommodation.  Wal-Mart's accommodation offer was reasonable as it eliminated the conflict between the employment requirement (to work on Sunday) and the religious practice (Chavis choosing to not work on Sunday to observe the Sabbath).  Title VII only required Wal-Mart to offer a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the one that Chavis sought.  By allowing Chavis to use her vacation time every third Sunday, the Court held that Wal-Mart was accommodating her religious beliefs (and Wal-Mart even returned the vacation time to her).

Judgment:  The District Court held that Wal-Mart offered a valid accommodation for the religious beliefs of an employee who did not want to work on Sunday in order to observe the Sabbath by requiring the employee to use vacation time, such that no violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 occurred.

The Takeaway:  I invite readers to read the rest of the opinion for the Court's analysis of the remainder of the causes of action alleged by Chavis.  With that being said, I chose to highlight the religious accommodation request in particular as it addressed a novel concept:  Whether an accommodation that required an employee to use vacation time to accommodate her religious beliefs is lawful.  It is not a stretch for an employee to be upset (if not incensed) if an employer required them to use vacation time in order to observe a religious belief.  However, I point readers to the caselaw and statutory language which guided the Court's analysis.  An employer is not required to offer the "best" accommodation or even the accommodation that the employee wants.  Instead, the employer is only required to offer a reasonable accommodation to accommodate the religious beliefs.  

As prior cases had established, and this Court relied upon, the accommodation offered by Wal-Mart was reasonable as it eliminated the conflict between APMs working on Sundays and Chavis holding religious beliefs that she not work on Sundays so she could observe the Sabbath.  Was it the accommodation that Chavis wanted?  No.  Was it a reasonable accommodation in the Court's eyes?  Yes.  Very interesting read...with a concise opinion from the Court.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Chin

Date:  July 18, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/ELD/ChavisWalmart071817.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more