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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more