U.S. Supreme Court turns away religious bias claim against Walgreens




U.S. Supreme Court turns away religious bias claim against Walgreens
U.S. Supreme Court turns away religious bias claim against Walgreens  

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who asked not to work on Saturdays for religious reasons as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The justices declined to review a lower court ruling in Darrell Patterson's religious discrimination lawsuit that concluded that his demand to never work on Saturday, observed as the Sabbath by Seventh-day Adventists, placed an undue hardship on Walgreens.

Patterson, who had trained customer service representatives at a Walgreens call center in Orlando, was fired in 2011 after failing to show up for work on a Saturday for an urgent training session.

The case tested the allowances companies must make for employees for religious reasons to comply with a federal anti-discrimination law called Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Under Title VII, employers must "reasonably accommodate" workers' religious practices unless that would cause the company "undue hardship."

Asked by the justices for its views on the case, President Donald Trump's administration in December suggested that the court review only part of the dispute - whether lower courts used an improper standard to judge "undue hardship" - one that is too favorable to companies.

The case pitted business interests against religious rights, two issues that often find favor with the conservative justices who hold a 5-4 majority on the high court.

Walgreens is part of Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

Patterson sued Walgreens in 2014 in Orlando federal court, alleging the retailer violated his religious rights under Title VII. For Seventh-day Adventists, observing the Sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday is a key tenet of their Protestant Christian denomination, founded in the 19th century.

He accused Walgreens of not adequately trying to accommodate his request not to work on Saturdays, and then trying to demote him without any guarantee not to schedule him on Saturdays.

Walgreens said it had repeatedly accommodated him since he joined the company in 2005, including shifting the training schedule to suit his needs.

The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2018 with Walgreens, saying it had made numerous efforts to accommodate Patterson and was not required to guarantee he would never work on a Saturday.

Patterson appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a reasonable accommodation requires employers to completely eliminate any conflict between work and religious needs, and that lower courts are divided over the issue.

Walgreens told the justices: "Title VII requires only that the employer 'reasonably accommodate' the employee, not 'totally accommodate.'"


(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

COMMENTS

More Related News

Wisconsin Voters Defy Stay-at-Home Orders With Polls Open
Wisconsin Voters Defy Stay-at-Home Orders With Polls Open

(Bloomberg) -- Wisconsin voters defied stay-at-home orders and waited for hours to cast ballots in the first state to hold an in-person election since the coronavirus pandemic shut down most public spaces.Although at least a dozen states have delayed primaries or switched to vote-by-mail since the outbreak, similar attempts by Wisconsin's Democratic governor, Tony Evers, were stymied by Republican opposition and rulings from the conservative majorities on the state and U.S. Supreme Courts.Democratic front-runner Joe Biden and rival Bernie Sanders were at the top of the ticket with 87 delegates at stake in the presidential primary fight. Biden, who has a near-insurmountable lead over...

The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's Misunderstood Ruling on Wisconsin's Coronavirus Primary

There seems to be some confusion about the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday in connection with Tuesday's Wisconsin primary. This owes to reporting that suggests, or at least could lead its audience to believe, that the Court's five conservative-leaning, Republican-appointed justices, over the strident objection of its four left-leaning, Democratic-appointed justices, directed that the primary proceed with in-person voting, despite the coronavirus threat.That is not what happened.The state government of Wisconsin, led by Governor Anthony Steven Evers, a Democrat, made the decision to go forward with the primary, and with in-person voting. As the Court's majority emphasizes, that was not...

Wisconsin Republicans
Wisconsin Republicans' deadly power grab

Monday night, there was a brief but furious political struggle over the Wisconsin election planned for Tuesday. Democratic Governor Tony Evers ordered that the election be delayed until June 9, so as to allow time for the novel coronavirus pandemic to pass, and so the state could set up universal vote-by-mail systems. Several other states have already taken similar steps.Right-wing Republican justices, who control the state Supreme Court by a 4-2 margin, including one of whom faces a liberal challenger in this very election (though he did recuse himself on this vote), immediately overturned his order. The U.S. Supreme Court also issued another 5-4 ruling on partisan lines forbidding the...

Political hackery at its worst: Supreme Court gives Wisconsin a green light to disenfranchise voters during the pandemic
Political hackery at its worst: Supreme Court gives Wisconsin a green light to disenfranchise voters during the pandemic

The court disenfranchises voters who are rightly afraid to vote in person because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Editorial: The U.S. Supreme Court just made it easier for police to pull you over
Editorial: The U.S. Supreme Court just made it easier for police to pull you over
  • US
  • 2020-04-06 23:16:18Z

The justices give police the OK to stop drivers with nothing more than the barest fig leaf of a reason: that the car owner's license has been revoked.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Economy