Tiano v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., s. 96-16723

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Citation139 F.3d 679
Docket NumberNos. 96-16723,96-16955,s. 96-16723
Parties76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 561, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,203, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1916, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2699 Mary TIANO, a married woman, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.
Decision Date18 March 1998

Charles L. Chester, Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant-appellant-cross appellee.

Bradley H. Schleier, Schleier Law Offices, Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiff-appellee-cross appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-01240-RGS.

Before: FLETCHER, WIGGINS, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

WIGGINS, Circuit Judge:

Mary Tiano sued her employer Dillard Department Stores ("Dillard's") for unlawful termination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., for failure to make reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs. Dillard's terminated Tiano, a Dillard's salesperson, after she departed on a ten-day "pilgrimage" to Medjugorje, Yugoslavia.

The district court found in favor of Tiano, holding that (1) Tiano established a prima facie case of religious discrimination, (2) Dillard's failed to demonstrate that it had made a reasonable effort to accommodate Tiano's religious beliefs, and (3) such reasonable accommodation would not have resulted in undue hardship to Dillard's. The court awarded Tiano $16,445.65 in lost wages. Dillard's appealed the finding of religious discrimination, and Tiano cross-appealed the damage award. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the finding of religious discrimination under Title VII.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-Appellee Mary Tiano was employed at Dillard's in the Park Central Mall in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1988. She worked in the women's shoe department as a salesperson. Dillard's considered her a productive employee, a "pacesetter," because her sales exceeded $200,000 per year. Tiano is a devout Roman Catholic who regularly attends church. She testified in court that her religion plays a significant role in her life.

In 1988, Dillard's had an authorized absence policy of granting unpaid leave at management's discretion. It also had a vacation policy which prohibited employees from taking leave between October and December, the store's busy holiday season.

In late August of 1988, Tiano learned of a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, Yugoslavia taking place between October 17 and October 26. Several people have claimed that visions of the Virgin Mary appeared to them in Medjugorje, although the Catholic Church has not designated Medjugorje an official pilgrimage site of the Church. Tiano testified that on August 22, 1988, she had a "calling from God" to attend this pilgrimage. The only evidence she offered at trial suggesting that her calling mandated her attendance on the specific dates listed above was the following testimony: "I felt I was called to go.... I felt that from deep in my heart that I was called. I had to be there at that time. I had to go." When asked if she could have gone at another time, Tiano responded, "No."

Tiano spoke with her immediate supervisor at Dillard's, Roxy McGraw, and requested unpaid leave to go on the October pilgrimage. McGraw denied the request. Next, Tiano spoke with Steve Foster, the Operations Manager, and, according to her testimony Tiano then met with Gary Borofsky, the Store Manager. Tiano testified that at this meeting she described the religious nature of the pilgrimage and the purported visions in Medjugorje. Borofsky testified at trial that he knew very little about the nature of her trip. He denied her request primarily because of the no-leave policy. Tiano then asked him if she could transfer to another store. Borofsky supplied her with the paperwork and, according to Tiano, stated that she would have to contact the stores herself. He informed her that she would not have a job at the Park Central Mall store when she returned from her pilgrimage. Tiano completed the transfer papers on October 14 and soon thereafter left on the pilgrimage.

explained that she was taking the trip for religious reasons. Foster denied her request because of the no-leave policy for October and the impending October anniversary sale. When the dates of the sale changed, Foster again denied her request.

In Tiano's absence, her immediate supervisor, McGraw, spent significant time on the sales floor. Several of Dillard's supervisors testified at trial that it was impracticable to hire a new employee to fill in for Tiano because of the required training time. In addition, they testified that current employees could not work more than they were already scheduled to work.

When Tiano returned from her trip on October 28, she went to Dillard's to inquire about her job. Foster informed her that she had voluntarily resigned her position. For the rest of 1988 and through 1989, Tiano searched diligently for a new job. In January of 1990, Tiano entered the field of floral design where she remained until the time of trial. By October of 1992, Tiano's salary was as much as or more than her salary had been at Dillard's.

After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a determination that Tiano had been a victim of religious discrimination, Tiano sued Dillard's in district court. She alleged that Dillard's had violated Title VII when it terminated her because of her pilgrimage. Dillard's claimed that Tiano did not have a sincerely-held religious belief, that it attempted to accommodate any belief she did have, and that accommodation would cause undue hardship. The district court found for Tiano and awarded her damages of $16,445.65. This award reflected lost wages incurred in 1988 and 1989 less any salary or unemployment benefits received. The court found that Tiano failed to mitigate her damages after January of 1990 because she accepted employment in a different field, floral design. These appeals followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo whether a plaintiff has satisfied the elements of a prima facie case of religious discrimination, but review the underlying facts for clear error. See Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir.1993).

DISCUSSION

Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to discharge any individual ... because of such individual's ... religion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Title VII defines "religion" to include "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." § 2000e(j).

This court has established a two-part framework to analyze Title VII religious discrimination claims. See Heller, 8 F.3d at 1438. First, the employee must establish a prima facie case by proving that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements. See id. Second, if the employee proves a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to show either that it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee's religious practices or that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship. See The district court found that Tiano established a prima facie case of religious discrimination and that Dillard's failed to show either that it made a good faith effort to accommodate her belief or that undue hardship would result. Because we find that the district court erred in determining that Tiano established a prima facie case, we need not discuss reasonable accommodation or undue hardship.

id.; E.E.O.C. v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504, 1512 (9th Cir.1989).

The district court concluded that Tiano's bona fide religious belief included a temporal mandate. Thus, the court interpreted her religious belief to be a need to go on a pilgrimage to Medjugorje between October 17 and 26, rather than a need to go to Medjugorje generally at some point in time. After a review of the entire record, we are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)) (internal quotations omitted). The evidence shows only a bona fide religious belief that she needed to go to Medjugorje at some time; she failed to prove the temporal mandate. The district court's determination to the contrary was clearly erroneous.

We recognize that, in general, employees do not have "[a]n inflexible duty to reschedule" their religious ceremonies. Heller, 8 F.3d at 1439. In a case such as this, however, where an employee maintains that her religious beliefs require her to attend a particular pilgrimage, she must prove that the temporal mandate was part of the bona fide religious belief. Otherwise, the employer is forced to accommodate the personal preferences of the employee--the timing of the trip. Title VII does not protect secular preferences. See, e.g., Brown v. General Motors Corp., 601 F.2d 956, 960 (8th Cir.1979); Vetter v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 884 F.Supp. 1287, 1307 (N.D.Iowa 1995).

The only evidence offered by Tiano to prove that the temporal mandate was part of her calling was her testimony. She directly addressed the question only once: "I felt I was called to go.... I felt that from deep in my heart that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Eatman v. United Parcel Service, 99 Civ. 9523.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 31, 2002
    ...decision to wear locks is, "in his own scheme of things," not a religious act but a personal choice. See Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 682 (9th Cir.1998) ("Title VII does not protect secular preferences."). Courts, congenitally incapable of judging the religious nature ......
  • Davis v. Fort Bend Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 26, 2014
    ...her to feed the community, Davis has failed to show that it required her to do so on Sunday, June 3.25 In Tiano v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 682 (9th Cir.1998), the court held that an employer did not have to accommodate an employee's religious belief that she needed to......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 1, 2013
    ...to protect them from—the spot where they must choose between their religious convictions and their job. See Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 682–83 (9th Cir.1998) (granting summary judgment to the employer on the employee's Title VII religion-accommodation claim because th......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • October 1, 2013
    ...to protect them from—the spot where they must choose between their religious convictions and their job. See Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 682-83 (9th Cir. 1998) (granting summary judgment to the employer on the employee's Title VII religion-accommodation claim because t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Employment Law Commentary, December 2013 - Volume 25, Issue 12
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 6, 2014
    ...[last accessed December 5, 2013 ]. 21 UKEAT/0379/10. 22 139 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 23 CIV. No. 08-5137 DSD/JJG, 2008 WL 8954713 (D. Minn. Dec. 1, 2008)/ 24 1301492/08. 25 ET/1400026/05/ 26 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D. Ariz. 2006). 27 598 F.3d 1022, 1023 (8th Cir. 2010). 28 See, e.g., E.E.O.C. ......
  • This Week At The Ninth: Religious Beliefs And Loyalty Oaths
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 24, 2023
    ...religious practices or that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship." Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1998). Because the latter showing'undue hardship'is an affirmative defense, dismissal on that ground is proper "only if the ......
5 books & journal articles
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part V. Discrimination In Employment
    • July 27, 2016
    ...beliefs, that duty does not extend to accommodating an employee’s personal preferences. Id . In Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998), a devout Roman Catholic employee asked the employer for leave during the store’s holiday season to attend a religious pilgrimage......
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 16, 2014
    ...beliefs, that duty does not extend to accommodating an employee’s personal preferences. Id . In Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998), a devout Roman Catholic employee asked the employer for leave during the store’s holiday season to attend a religious pilgrimage......
  • Employer Responses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Employment Evidence
    • April 1, 2022
    ...on a personal preference and was not necessary to carry out a bona fide religious practice. ( Citing Tiano v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc ., 139 F.3d 679, 682–83 (9th Cir. 1998) (where the selection of which pilgrimage plaintiff had to attend was a matter of personal preference and not part o......
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 19, 2017
    ...beliefs, that duty does not extend to accommodating an employee’s personal preferences. Id . In Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 1998), a devout Roman Catholic employee asked the employer for leave during the store’s holiday season to attend a religious pilgrimage......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT