Case Summary
The case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison is concerned with the failure of the employer to accommodate the employee’s religious observance day. The plaintiff, Hardison, was an employee at Trans World Airlines and a devoted Jew who observed Sabbath every Saturday. According to the Jewish traditions, the seventh day of the week, Saturday, is a rest day during which the followers of Judaism are not allowed to do any work. As Sabbath, or Shabbat, is a holy day in Judaism, it was important for Hardison to be able to work shifts that would allow him to be free on Saturdays.
Trans World Airlines maintained a seniority system that would allow each worker to have a certain level of priority when choosing his or her shifts. For some years, Hardison worked at a department of TWA which presented him with a level of seniority enough to choose the shifts that allowed his observance of Shabbat. However, after willingly changing jobs, his seniority level was no longer enough to give him the necessary freedom to not schedule shifts on Saturdays. Although the company sought to accommodate Hardison’s religious needs, it was unable to accept his proposal to only work 4 days a week. Hardison’s refusal to work on Saturdays eventually caused him to be terminated.
The plaintiff claimed that the company failed to accommodate him and violated Title VII that protects individuals from religious discrimination. However, the court concluded that TWA made a reasonable effort at accommodating Hardison and granting him the request to work four days a week would detriment the function of his department due to them being short-staffed. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals claimed that TWA did not make sufficient effort of offering alternative solutions to Hardison’s scheduling problem and rejected three reasonable alternatives. Regardless of the apparent potential hardships the company claimed, it could have offered Hardison’s Saturday shift to another employee for an overtime pay. Nevertheless, breaking the seniority rules for one employee, no matter the little individual cost, would set a precedent for future cases. Therefore, granting Hardison special treatment would have led to TWA having large costs in the long-run. Regardless, the Court of Appeals deemed TWA liable for not having made a sufficient effort to accommodate Hardison.
Case Questions
The alternatives suggested by the court of appeals
There were a few alternatives that were offered by the Court of Appeals for the TWA in the case of Hardison’s scheduling conflict. However, for several reasons none of these alternatives were viable in the long-run and therefore, TWA should not have been held accountable for its decision to terminate Hardison. Firstly, allowing the plaintiff to work four days a week would have caused a short-staffing situation and would put unnecessary strains on the other workers at the organization. Furthermore, allowing Hardison to overlook the seniority system and to have more freedom to choose his hours would also be unfair on other workers. Lastly, forcing another employee to take on more hours as a result would not only be unfair on the other staff but would put a strain on the company’s budget in the long-term. Since putting forward a precedent could cause a number of similar cases to come forward, such as other people that for whatever reason wish to overlook the seniority system, this would cause disorder.
Prohibiting religious discrimination and accommodating religious differences
Some agreements and rules, as well as rights, can be non-coexistent, leading to inconsistencies in judgements. However, since there would not be a viable solution that would honor both prohibiting religious discrimination and the collective bargaining agreement in this case, it should be accepted that only one of them can be prioritized. Considering that the company made an effort to accommodate Hardison’s religious needs, including a search for a new job, it cannot be blamed for inconsistency. Furthermore, it was Hardison’s own decision to change jobs, which he had made willingly and knowingly of the company’s policies on seniority and scheduling. Since there is an inevitable trade-off in this case, it is essential for the company to value the company agreement in order to maintain a cooperative and trusting working environment.
Alternative handling of this conflict
If Hardison came to me with the scheduling conflict before his transfer, I would have advised him to not change jobs and instead look for alternative solutions. Furthermore, I would have helped him with the resources to find alternative job offers that would let him honor both Shabbat and the company policies. Religious accommodation is a serious issue and should be considered with the utmost respect (Good, 2018), and yet it is also important to not show favoritism to employees. On the other hand, Hardison could come to me after his transfer, which he had made knowing that he would not have the sufficient seniority level to not schedule any shifts on Saturdays. In this case, I would help him come up with alternative solutions, such as finding someone in the company to regularly take Hardison’s shift instead of him. However, if the compromise could not be found within a two-week period, I would be forced to terminate Hardison. I think that the Court was unnecessarily dismissive of the company’s efforts and should have deemed the effort sufficient.