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

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), is a landmark decision on religious liberty and employment law. In 1977, the US Supreme Court held 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. However, subsequent legal developments and cases have challenged this precedent's validity.

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 him from the night shift to the daytime on Saturdays. However, his seniority was affected by the shift change, and the union did not allow him to take Saturdays off. TWA declined a proposal for him to work a four-day week and ultimately discharged him for refusing to work on Saturdays.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court sided with Trans World Airlines, stating that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires "reasonable" accommodations for religious exercise.[1][2] Justice Thurgood Marshall, in a widely-cited dissent, wrote, "[O]ne of this Nation's pillars of strength, our hospitality to religious diversity, has been seriously eroded."[3]

Various challenges to the TWA v. Hardison precedent have emerged over time. In 2020, the Supreme Court declined to review Patterson v. Walgreen, a case which might have led to a reconsideration of the 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]

Similarly, in 2021, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Dalberiste v. GLE Associates and Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, cases that potentially challenged the established precedent. Justices Gorsuch and Alito wrote a dissent to the denial of certiorari.[4][5]

On September 26, 2022, 15 members of the US Congress filed an amicus brief arguing that the standard in Hardison for "undue hardship" conflicted with the text and legislative purpose of Title VII.[6] They urged the court to grant certiorari in Groff v. DeJoy and overturn the standing precedent.

Groff v. DeJoy

The Supreme Court discussed the Groff v. DeJoy case in their conference on January 13, 2023, and granted certiorari.[7][8] This case challenges the legal precedent from TWA.[9] The precedential value of Hardison is now lessened by: GROFF v. DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL per this controlling language located at Part II C final paragraph; of the Opinion of the Court.

Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position that Hardison should be overruled--but only on the understanding that Hardison does not compel courts to read the "more than de minimis" standard "literally" or in a manner that undermines Hardison's references to "substantial" cost.14 Tr. of Oral Arg. 107. With the benefit of comprehensive briefing and oral argument, we agree." ft 15

— 

See also

References

  1. ↑ Vile, John R. "Trans World Airlines v. Hardison". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved November 7, 2019.
  2. ↑ "Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison". Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved November 7, 2019.
  3. 1 2 "Judges Thapar and Kethledge Call for SCOTUS to Reconsider TWA v. Hardison (1977)". Reason.com. March 13, 2020. Retrieved February 24, 2023.
  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. April 6, 2021. Retrieved February 24, 2023.
  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 January 24, 2023.
  8. ↑ "Docket for 22-174". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved January 24, 2023.
  9. ↑ VanSickle, Abbie; Liptak, Adam (June 29, 2023). "Supreme Court Sides With Postal Carrier Who Refused to Work on Sabbath". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.