Opinion of the Court
gloss on “de minimis.”[1] And in other cases, courts have rejected accommodations that the EEOC’s guidelines consider to be ordinarily required, such as the relaxation of dress codes and coverage for occasional absences.[2]
Members of this Court have warned that, if the de minimis rule represents the holding of Hardison, the decision might have to be reconsidered. Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 593 U. S. ___ (2021) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 589 U. S. ___ (2020) (Alito, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). Four years ago, the Solicitor General—joined on its brief by the EEOC—likewise took that view. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., O. T. 2019, No. 18–349, p. 20 (“Contrary to Hardison, therefore, an ‘undue hardship’ is not best interpreted to mean ‘more than a de minimis cost’ ”).
Today, the Solicitor General disavows its prior position that Hardison should be overruled—but only on the understanding that Hardison does not compel courts to read the
- ↑ For example, two years ago, the Seventh Circuit told the EEOC that it would be an undue hardship on Wal-Mart (the Nation’s largest private employer, with annual profits of over $11 billion) to be required to facilitate voluntary shift-trading to accommodate a prospective assistant manager’s observance of the Sabbath. EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L. P., 992 F. 3d 656, 659–660 (2021). See Walmart Inc., Wall Street Journal Markets (June 4, 2023).
- ↑ See, e.g., Wagner v. Saint Joseph’s/Candler Health System, Inc., 2022 WL 905551, *4–*5 (SD Ga., Mar. 28, 2022) (Orthodox Jew fired for taking off for High Holy Days); Camara v. Epps Air Serv., Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1322, 1331–1332 (ND Ga., 2017) (Muslim woman who wore a hijab fired because the sight of her might harm the business in light of “negative stereotypes and perceptions about Muslims”); El-Amin v. First Transit, Inc., 2005 WL 1118175, *7–*8 (SD Ohio, May 11, 2005) (Muslim employee terminated where religious services conflicted with “two hours” of training a week during a month of daily training); EEOC v. Sambo’s of Ga., Inc., 530 F. Supp. 86, 91 (ND Ga., 1981) (hiring a Sikh man as a restaurant manager would be an undue hardship because his beard would have conflicted with “customer preference”).
