E.E.O.C. v. University of Detroit, Nos. 89-1084

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before MARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, CONTIE; ALAN E. NORRIS
• Citation: 904 F.2d 331
• Parties: 52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1657, 54 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,058, 58 USLW 2713, 60 Ed. Law Rep. 1085 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Robert Patrick Roesser, Intervenor-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT and University of Detroit Professors Union, Defendants-Appellees. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert Patrick Roesser, Intervenor, v. UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT and University of Detroit Professors Union, Defendants-Appellees.
• Decision Date: 31 May 1990
• Docket Number: Nos. 89-1084,89-1226

Page 331

904 F.2d 331 52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1657,
54 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,058, 58 USLW 2713,
60 Ed. Law Rep. 1085 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
Robert Patrick Roesser, Intervenor-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT and University of Detroit Professors
Union, Defendants-Appellees.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Robert Patrick Roesser, Intervenor,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT and University of Detroit Professors
Union, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 89-1084, 89-1226. United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit. Argued Dec. 1, 1989.
Decided April 17, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied
May 31, 1990.

Page 332

Samuel A. Marcosson (argued), E.E.O.C., Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C., Mimi M. Gendreau, Equal Employment Opportunity Office, Detroit Dist. Office, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

David E. Kempner, Keller, Thomas, Schwarze, Schwarze, DuBay & Katz, Detroit, Mich., Bruce N. Cameron (argued), Nat. Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, Va., for intervenor-appellant.

Bruce R. Lerner, Peter O. Shinevar (argued), Robert H. Chanin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., David P. Smith (argued), Bloomfield Hills, Mich., Eli Grier, Levin, Levin, Garvett & Dill, Southfield, Mich., for defendants-appellees.

Before MARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge.

Under section 701(j) of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(j), an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious needs unless the employer demonstrates that such an accommodation would result in undue hardship. The issue in this appeal is whether an employer satisfies this statutory duty by offering an accommodation which addresses but one part of the conflict between the employee's employment obligations and sincere religious belief. The district court concluded that an employer could satisfy this obligation by proposing an accommodation which only addressed one aspect of the conflict, despite the fact that the employee was still required to compromise an essential element of a sincerely held religious belief. Because the district court erred in holding that the partial accommodation was reasonable as a matter of law, this case must be remanded to determine whether there is any accommodation, short of undue hardship, which will completely resolve the conflict at issue.

I.

Intervenor-appellant Robert Patrick Roesser is an electrical engineer who holds a Ph.D. degree. He was hired by defendant University of Detroit as an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the beginning of the 1979-1980 academic year.

The university, a private institution affiliated with the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), is party to a collective bargaining agreement with defendant University of Detroit Professors Union. The union is affiliated with both the Michigan Education Association ("MEA") and the National Education Association ("NEA"). By internal union arrangement, most of the fees collected by the union are passed along to the MEA and the NEA.

Article 3.2 of the collective bargaining agreement, a typical "agency shop" clause, requires all employees represented by the union to either join the union or pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service fee equal in amount to union dues. After he began teaching at the university, Roesser refrained from joining the union but authorized the union to deduct the agency fees from his paycheck. However, Roesser withdrew his authorization for payroll deductions when he discovered that the NEA and MEA had campaigned to protect women's rights of choice respecting abortions, ¹ a position inconsistent with his own religious convictions. ²

Page 333

Once the MEA's position became known to him, Roesser advised the union that his religious beliefs were incompatible with the union's position. He maintained that his religious beliefs conflict with the agency shop requirement, since they prevent him from supporting financially any organization that promotes abortion, and constrain him from associating in any way with an organization that promotes abortions. Because his religious beliefs were incompatible with either financial support or association with the MEA and NEA, Roesser refused to pay any of his agency fees. However, he offered either to pay an amount equal to his entire agency fee to charity or to remit that portion of his fee which was allocated solely to the union's local responsibilities and pay the balance to a charitable organization. The union rejected both offers.

When the university refused to consider the union's request to terminate Roesser until it first offered to accommodate his religious beliefs, the union president, Maryjo Nichols, sent a letter to Roesser. Ms. Nichols acknowledged that the union was aware of Roesser's sincere religious belief, and made this proposal:

[W]e will reduce the agency service fee required of you by an amount proportional to that percentage of the MEA budget which is even remotely connected with the alleged support of issues to which you take exception. Your agency service fee would therefore be reduced by $21.08 for the 1983-84 academic year. (Please see the enclosed reduced service fee calculation worksheet.) Similarly, your service fee would be reduced by an additional $7.78 based on NEA budget figures.

Roesser rejected the union's proposed accommodation and explained his decision as follows:

Regardless of the amount of the fee that I might pay, a percentage as estimated will be used to support issues to which I object. The choice I must make is to either pay nothing, in which case no support goes to objectionable issues, or to...