Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prospective employee's Title VII action, alleging that defendant failed to accommodate his religion for instant assistant manager position by scheduling him on permanent basis to days other than between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday, and (2) withdrawing said job offer when plaintiff failed to accept different management position that could accommodate said schedule, but at lower pay, after management learned of plaintiff's accommodation request for assistant manager position. Defendant opposed instant accommodation request because: (1) it would require other seven assistant managers to accept additional weekend shifts, even though they preferred to have weekends off; (2) it precluded plaintiff from experiencing all eight assistant manager schedules and department supervisions; and (3) it would disrupt work schedule and leave store short-staffed at some times. Ct. of Appeals, in affirming Dist. Ct., found that plaintiff's proposed accommodation was unreasonable because it would yield undue hardship, i.e., more than "slight burden" on employer, since: (1) plaintiff's proposed accommodation fell on his co-workers because they, as opposed to defendant, would be required to take on additional undesirable weekend shifts; and (2) Title VII does not require employer to offer accommodation that comes at expense of other workers. Moreover, Ct. rejected EEOC suggestion that proposed accommodation was reasonable even though it would leave defendant short-staffed on some days. (Dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Employment Discrimination