Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), is a landmark decision on religious liberty and employment law made in 1977 by the US Supreme Court, holding that an employer may discharge an employee who observes a seventh-day sabbath, and that such employee is not entitled to equal employment opportunity protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 30, 1977
Decided June 16, 1977
Full case nameTrans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison
Docket no.75-1126
Citations432 U.S. 63 (more)
Questions presented
Whether Hardison's discharge from employment on account of observance of a seventh-day sabbath constituted religious discrimination in violation of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion
Holding
TWA, which made reasonable efforts to accommodate respondent's religious needs, did not violate Title VII, and each of the Court of Appeals' suggested alternatives would have been an undue hardship within the meaning of the statute as construed by the EEOC guidelines.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
DissentMarshall, joined by Brennan

The Supreme Court agreed in 2023 to hear a case, Groff v. DeJoy, that challenges the legal precedent from TWA.

Case History

Larry Hardison was an employee at Trans World Airline. Hardison was a member of the Worldwide Church of God and refused to work on Saturdays which was his sabbath. TWA transferred his shift from night to during the day on Saturday. But he didn't keep the same seniority once he switched job roles, and therefore the union wouldn't let him have Saturdays off. TWA refused a proposal wherein he would have worked only four days a week, and he was eventually discharged for refusing to work on Saturdays.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme court sided with the Trans World Airlines because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states there needs to be “reasonable” accommodations for religious exercise.[1][2]

In a widely quoted dissenting opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote "[O]ne of this Nation's pillars of strength our hospitality to religious diversity has been seriously eroded."[3]

In 2020, the Supreme Court denied cert in Patterson v. Walgreen, a case that called on the Court to reconsider TWA v. Hardison precedent. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote a statement calling for the Hardison precedent to be reconsidered in a future appropriate case:

I agree with the most important point made in that brief, namely, that we should reconsider the proposition, endorsed by the opinion in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 84 (1977), that Title VII does not require an employer to make any accommodation for an employee's practice of religion if doing so would impose more than a de minimis burden. . . . As the Solicitor General observes, Hardison's reading does not represent the most likely interpretation of the statutory term "undue hardship"; the parties' briefs in Hardison did not focus on the meaning of that term; no party in that case advanced the de minimis position; and the Court did not explain the basis for this interpretation. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19–21. I thus agree with the Solicitor General that we should grant review in an appropriate case to consider whether Hardison's interpretation should be overruled.[3]

In 2021 the high court denied certiorari in Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, which would have challenged the precedent. Judge Gorsuch and Alito wrote a dissent to the denial of certiorari.[4][5]

15 members of US Congress filed an amicus brief on 26 September 2022, arguing that the standard set in Hardison for "undue hardship" was irreconcilable with the text and congressional purpose of Title VII,[6] imploring the court to grant certiorari in Groff v. DeJoy, and overturn its precedent.

The Supreme Court discussed this case in their conference on January 13, 2023, and granted certiorari.[7][8]

See also

References
  1. Vile, John R. "Trans World Airlines v. Hardison". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
  2. "Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison". Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
  3. "Judges Thapar and Kethledge Call for SCOTUS to Reconsider TWA v. Hardison (1977)". Reason.com. Retrieved 2023-02-24.
  4. Gorsuch, Neal; Alito, Samuel. "JASON SMALL v. MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT". United States Supreme Court; Chapter 593 U. S. ____ (2021). United States Supreme Court.
  5. "Did Justice Thomas Cover for Justice Barrett's Vote To Deny Cert To Reconsider TWA v. Hardison?". Reason.com. Retrieved 2023-02-24.
  6. "BRIEF OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER" (PDF). SupremeCourt.gov.
  7. "Groff v. DeJoy". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2023-01-24.
  8. "Docket for 22-174". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2023-01-24.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.