Trans World Airlines, Inc v. Hardison International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Hardison

Decision Date16 June 1977
Docket NumberAFL-CIO,75-1385,Nos. 75-1126,s. 75-1126
Citation97 S.Ct. 2264,53 L.Ed.2d 113,432 U.S. 63
PartiesTRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. Larry G. HARDISON et al. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,, et al., Petitioners, v. Larry G. HARDISON et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Respondent Hardison (hereafter respondent) was employed by Trans World Airlines (TWA), petitioner in No. 75-1126, in a department that operated 24 hours a day throughout the year in connection with an airplane maintenance and overhaul base. Respondent was subject to a seniority system in a collective-bargaining agreement between TWA and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (union), petitioner in No. 75-1385, whereby the most senior employees have first choice for job and shift assignments as they become available, and the most junior employees are required to work when enough employees to work at a particular time or in a particular job to fill TWA's needs cannot be found. Because respondent's religious beliefs prohibit him from working on Saturdays, attempts were made to accommodate him, and these were temporarily successful mainly because on his job at the time he had sufficient seniority regularly to observe Saturday as his Sabbath. But when he sought, and was transferred to, another job where he was asked to work Saturdays and where he had low seniority, problems began to arise. TWA agreed to permit the union to seek a change of work assignments, but the union was not willing to violate the seniority system, and respondent had insufficient seniority to bid for a shift having Saturdays off. After TWA rejected a proposal that respondent work only four days a week on the ground that this would impair critical functions in the airline operations, no accommodation could be reached, and respondent was discharged for refusing to work on Saturdays. Then, having first invoked the administrative remedy provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, respondent brought an action for injunctive relief against TWA and the union, claiming that his discharge constituted religious discrimination in violation of § 703(a)(1) of the Act, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion. He also made certain other charges against the union. His claim of religious discrimination was based on the 1967 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines in effect at the time requiring an employer, short of "undue hardship," to make "reasonable accommodations" to the religious needs of its employees, and on similar language in the 1972 amendments to Title VII. The District Court ruled in favor of both TWA and the union, holding that the union's duty to accommodate respondent's religious beliefs did not require it to ignore the seniority system, and that TWA had satisfied its "reasonable accommodations" obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the union but reversed the judgment for TWA, holding that TWA had not satisfied its duty to accommodate respondent's religious needs under the EEOC guidelines. The court took the view that TWA had rejected three reasonable alternatives, any one of which would have satisfied its obligation without undue hardship: (1) Within the framework of the seniority system, TWA could have permitted respondent to work a four-day week, utilizing a supervisor or another worker on duty elsewhere, even though this would have caused other shop functions to suffer; (2) TWA could have filled respondent's Saturday shift from other available personnel, even though this would have involved premium overtime pay; and (3) TWA could have arranged a "swap" between respondent and another employee either for another shift or for the Sabbath days, even though this would have involved a breach of the seniority system. Held: 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. Pp. 76-85.

(a) The seniority system itself represented a significant accommodation to the needs, both religious and secular, of all of TWA's employees. Pp. 77-78.

(b) TWA itself cannot be faulted for having failed to work out a shift or job swap for respondent. Both the union and TWA had agreed to the seniority system; the union was unwilling to entertain a variance over the objections of employees senior to respondent; and for TWA to have arranged unilaterally for a swap would have breached the collective-bargaining agreement. An agreed-upon seniority system is not required to give way to accommodate religious observances, and it would be anomalous to conclude that by "reasonable accommodations" Congress meant that an employer must deny the shift and job preferences of some employees, as well as deprive them of their contractual rights, in order to accommodate or prefer the religious needs of others. Title VII does not require an employer to go that far. Pp. 79-81.

(c) Under § 703(h) of Title VII, absent a discriminatory purpose, the operation of a seniority system cannot be an unlawful employment practice even if the system is discriminatory in its effect. Pp. 81-82.

(d) To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give respondent Saturdays off would be an undue hardship, for, like abandonment of the seniority system, to require TWA to bear additional costs when no such costs are incurred to give other employees the days off that they want would involve unequal treatment of employees on the basis of their religion. Absent clear statutory language or legislative history to the contrary, the statute, the paramount concern of which is to eliminate discrimination in employment, cannot be construed to require an employer to discriminate against some employees in order to enable others to observe their Sabbath. Pp. 84-85.

527 F.2d 33, reversed.

George E. Feldmiller, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D. C., for petitioners International Ass'n of Machinists etc., et al.

William H. Pickett, Kansas City, Mo., for respondents.

Nathan Lewin, Washington, D. C., for the Nat. Jewish Com'n on Law and Public Affairs, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 703(a)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee or a prospective employee on the basis of his or her religion. At the time of the events involved here, a guideline of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 29 CFR § 1605.1(b) (1968), required, as the Act itself now does, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) (1970 ed., Supp. V), that an employer, short of "undue hardship," make "reasonable accommodations" to the religious needs of its employees. The issue in this case is the extent of the employer's obligation under Title VII to accommodate an employee whose religious beliefs prohibit him from working on Saturdays.

I

We summarize briefly the facts found by the District Court. 375 F.Supp. 877 (WD Mo.1974).

Petitioner Trans World Airlines (TWA) operates a large maintenance and overhaul base in Kansas City, Mo. On June 5, 1967, respondent Larry G. Hardison was hired by TWA to work as a clerk in the Stores Department at its Kansas City base. Because of its essential role in the Kansas City operation, the Stores Department must operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, and whenever an employee's job in that department is not filled, an employee must be shifted from another department, or a supervisor must cover the job, even if the work in other areas may suffer.

Hardison, like other employees at the Kansas City base, was subject to a seniority system contained in a collective-bargaining agreement 1 that TWA maintains with petitioner International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).2 The seniority system is implemented by the union steward through a system of bidding by employees for particular shift assignments as they become available. The most senior employees have first choice for job and shift assignments, and the most junior employees are required to work when the union steward is unable to find enough people willing to work at a particular time or in a particular job to fill TWA's needs.

In the spring of 1968 Hardison began to study the religion known as the Worldwide Church of God. One of the tenets of that religion is that one must observe the Sabbath by refraining from performing any work from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday. The religion also proscribes work on certain specified religious holidays.

When Hardison informed Everett Kussman, the manager of the Stores Department, of his religious conviction regarding observance of the Sabbath, Kussman agreed that the union steward should seek a job swap for Hardison or a change of days off; that Hardison would have his religious holidays off whenever possible if Hardison agreed to work the traditional holidays when asked; and that Kussman would try to find Hardison another job that would be more compatible with his religious beliefs. The problem was temporarily solved when Hardison transferred to the 11 p. m.-7 a. m. shift. Working this shift permitted Hardison to observe his Sabbath.

The problem soon reappeared when Hardison bid for and received a transfer from Building 1, where he had been employed, to Building 2, where he would work the day shift. The two buildings had entirely separate seniority lists; and while in Building 1 Hardison had sufficient seniority to observe the Sabbath regularly, he was second from the bottom on the Building 2 seniority list.

In Building 2 Hardison was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
707 cases
  • Hiatt v. City of Berkeley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 1982
    ...as would be applicable were they Negroes and Jackson white." (Pp. 279-280, 96 S.Ct. at p. 2579). In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed its earlier statement that the purpose of title VII was to insure ......
  • Hiatt v. City of Berkeley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 1978
    ...be applicable were they Negroes and Jackson white." (427 U.S. at pp. 279-280, 96 S.Ct. at 2579.) In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed its earlier statement that the purpose of Title VII was to insure ......
  • Hiatt v. City of Berkeley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 19, 1979
    ...applicable were they Negroes and Jackson white." (427 U.S. at pp. 279-280, 96 S.Ct. at p. 2579.) In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed its earlier statement that the purpose of Title VII was to insure ......
  • Lemmons v. Georgetown University Hosp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 4, 2006
    ...short of undue hardship, for the religious practices of his employees and prospective employees." Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977). Moreover, Title VII's reasonable accommodations provision is not governed by the McDonnell Douglas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 firm's commentaries
  • Annual Report On EEOC Developments - Fiscal Year 2021
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • April 26, 2022
    ...information regarding appellate cases in which the EEOC f‌iled an appellate or an amicus brief, see Appendix B to this Report.114 432 U.S. 63, 84 ( Littler Mendelson, P.C. | Labor & Employment Law Solutions28ANNUAL REPORT ON EEOC DEVELOPMENTS: FISCAL YEAR 2021III. EEOC AGENCY AND REGULATORY......
  • What Matters Is Motive: Religious Accommodation Need As A 'Motivating Factor' In Employment Decisions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 4, 2015
    ...VII case by demonstrating that accommodation would place more than a de minimis burden on its business. Transworld Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (interpreting 42 U.S.C. §2000e(j) and establishing a "de minimis" standard for undue hardship in Title VII religion cases). But the Abe......
  • Employment Law Commentary, December 2013 - Volume 25, Issue 12
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 6, 2014
    ...2013), citing Thomas v. Nat' Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 225 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2000). 10 Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 65, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 2267, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113 11 E.E.O.C. v. JBS USA, LLC, No. 8:10-CV-318, 2013 WL 6621026 (D. Neb. Oct. 11, 2013); EEOC v. Fire......
  • U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Employers’ Religious Accommodation Obligations
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 29, 2023
    ...affirmed. The Third Circuit explained that it felt “bound by” the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), in which the Court held that requiring the employer – there, an airline – to accommodate a worker’s Sabbath observation was unreasonable. O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
53 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (Turner II), 520 U.S. 180, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 137 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997), 1485, 1497 TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977), Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97 (1908), 1239-40, 1242 TXO Production Corp. v......
  • Disability Discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 9, 2017
    ...existing seniority system are generally not acceptable) (citing Barnett , 122 S. Ct. at 1524); cf. Trans World Airlines v. Hardison , 432 U.S. 63, 79 (1977) (Title VII reasonable accommodation provision for religion does not require employers to take steps inconsistent with collective barga......
  • 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
    ...without undue hardship is well established with respect to employees’ religious beliefs. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison , 432 U.S. 63, 74 (1977); Antoine v. First Student, Inc. , 713 F.3d 824, 831-32 (5th Cir. 2013); 42 U.S.C. §2000e(j) (2012). The TCHRA has expressly adopted th......
  • Where There's Smoke, There's Fire?: the Cloud of Suspicion Surrounding Former Offenders and the Eeoc's New Enforcement Guidance on Criminal Records Under Title Vii
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 30-2, December 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...multiple "terms of restriction [] indicate that the exception reaches only special situations"); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977) (holding employers do not bear more than a de minimus burden to accommodate religious needs). 151. See supra note 149.152. Aukerman......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 provisions
  • 29 C.F.R. § 37.4 What Definitions Apply to This Part?
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle A. Office of the Secretary of Labor Part 37. Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Wia) Subpart A. General Provisions
    • January 1, 2023
    ...other than de minimis costs, that a particular accommodation would impose upon a recipient. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,432 U.S. 63, 81, 84(1977). WIA means the Workforce Investment Act 1998, Pub. L. 105-220. ...
  • 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2 Reasonable Accommodation Without Undue Hardship As Required By Section 701(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter XIV. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Part 1605. Guidelines On Discrimination Because of Religion
    • January 1, 2023
    ...that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business. 2 2 See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,432 U.S. 63, 74(1977). (2) 701(j) in conjunction with section 703(c), imposes an obligation on a labor organization to reasonably accommodate the religious practi......
  • 29 C.F.R. 1605 app A toSections1605.2 and 1605.3 Background Information
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter XIV. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Part 1605. Guidelines On Discrimination Because of Religion
    • January 1, 2023
    ...adding section 701(j).In 1977, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). Hardison was brought under section 703(a)(1) because it involved facts occurring before the enactment of section 701(j). The Court ap......

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