Religious Liberty in Jeopardy: Supreme Court Denies Seventh-Day Adventist’s Religious Bias Claim Against Walgreens

Today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of an ex-Walgreens employee who was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays due to his religious beliefs. The Florida man bringing the claims of religious discrimination against Walgreens is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As the name implies, Seventh-day Adventists are a Protestant Christian denomination that observes Saturday as the Sabbath. Since it was filed in 2011, this case has been closely monitored by legal scholars, religious leaders, and Washington politicians. Many see this latest development as a major blow to religious liberty in the United States.

Darrell Patterson, the man who filed the lawsuit, Patterson v. Walgreens, was fired back in 2011, when he refused to show up for a Walgreens training session scheduled on a Saturday. Patterson had worked for Walgreens in Orlando, Florida since 2005. Patterson stated that he was upfront with his employer about being a devout Seventh-day Adventist and that it was important to him that he observe Saturday as the Sabbath. Much like those practicing Judaism, as a Seventh-day Adventist, Patterson avoids work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. He worked for Walgreens for six years without incident, and received several promotions, ultimately becoming a trainer for the company. In 2011, Patterson was asked to perform a training session during his Sabbath on Saturday, which he refused, while also attempting to find a replacement trainer. Even though Patterson ended up conducting the training session that following Monday, he was placed on administrative leave the next day and ultimately fired by Walgreens two days later.

Patterson sued Walgreens claiming religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on a failure to accommodate. Walgreens claimed that it had accommodated Patterson by offering him a demotion and pay-cut prior to placing him on administrative leave, even though Walgreens did not guarantee that Patterson would not need to work on his Sabbath. Walgreens also claimed that allowing trainers to take Saturdays off would impose an undue burden on the company. Walgreens argued that it may have a greater need for Saturday training in the future. The federal district court ruled in favor of Walgreens, finding that the offer of demotion was a reasonable accommodation, and that a possible future impact on Walgreens was sufficient to establish an undue hardship. Patterson appealed his case to the Atlanta-based, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, whose holding largely mirrored that of the lower federal district court. On Monday, February 20, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ultimately refused to review Patterson’s claim, despite the Trump administration’s suggestion in December that the Supreme Court would review part of the dispute, namely, whether the lower courts used an improper standard in determining “undue hardship,” one that appeared too favorable to companies.

This case tested the parameters of federal anti-discrimination law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Under Title VII, employers are required to “reasonably accommodate” workers’ religious practices unless that would cause an “undue hardship” to the company. More specifically the case sought to resolve the conflict between the federal circuit courts of appeals regarding what constitutes a reasonable accommodation. A plurality of courts, namely, the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held that an accommodation must fully eliminate the work and religious conflict in order to be “reasonable.” The Eighth and Tenth circuits have held that it creates a question for a jury to decide, while the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that an accommodation that lessens or has the potential to eliminate the work and religious conflict is reasonable. The case also sought to determine whether possible future burdens of undue hardship satisfy the standard under the law. Meaning whether a company can deny an individual’s request for a religious accommodation, if that accommodation can, theoretically, at some point in the future place a hardship on the employer.

It is interesting to note, that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear what many legal experts deemed a potentially seminal case concerning religious freedom, has left the door open for companies to terminate employees on the basis of their religious beliefs, if those religious beliefs create any sort of potential issue for the employer. Patterson v. Walgreens, is not the first time business interests have been pitted against religious rights. In EEOC. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Justice Scalia’s last major religious-liberty opinion, answered the question of whether an employer is liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant based on a religious observance or practice, even if the employer does not have direct knowledge that a religious accommodation is required.

In Abercrombie, a female 17-year-old practicing Muslim, applied for a position at an Abercrombie store. She wore a headscarf or hijab to the interview. The headscarf ultimately lowered the score on the appearance section of the application lowering her overall score, and resulting in her not being hired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued on her behalf. In an 8-1 majority opinion in favor of the EEOC, Judge Antonin Scalia opined that liability under Title VII’s “disparate-treatment” provision, did not require knowledge on the part of the employer but only a motive.

Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court’s recent failure to address the broader questions presented in Patterson v. Walgreens will result in businesses continuing to test the boundaries of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which may result in a gradual erosion of religious liberty in the workplace. It is time for the Supreme Court to take a definitive stance on the issue. Unfortunately, it will likely take several more years for a similar case to reach the steps of the Supreme Court. Until then, Mr. Patterson is out of a job for standing by his religious beliefs.