In the Case of a Director at an Acute Care Hospital the Answer Is No
Employers covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are required to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of employees as long as it doesn’t create an undue hardship on the employer’s operations. Was it discrimination for an acute care hospital to withdraw a job offer to a Director of Physician Clinic Operations when it learned that the new Director was a Seventh Day Adventist and was not willing to work from sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday? The hospital claimed that it needed the Director to be available 24/7 and that the Director’s religious practice couldn’t be accommodated. After the hospital withdrew the offer, the employee sued for religious discrimination. The court granted summary judgment in the hospital’s favor.
Not Qualified for the Position
The Director argued that the fact that the hospital required 24/7 availability was direct evidence of religious discrimination because no employee whose religious practices required strict observance of a Sabbath tradition would ever be qualified for the position. The court disagreed. The court found that there was no dispute that it did in fact require 24/7 availability of its directors, including the directors that previously held that position. Indeed, the evidence was undisputed that other directors frequently worked late on Fridays as well as on Saturdays. The court concluded that being available 24/7 was an essential function of the Director’s position. It would be unreasonable for the hospital to assign others to cover for the Director during the Sabbath. Consequently, the court held that the Director was not qualified for the position of Director, and because of that the Director was not able to make out a prima facie case of religious discrimination.
Lessons for Employers
The undisputed facts in this case made it an easy call for the court and the hospital. Nevertheless, not all cases are this easy. When confronted with a request to accommodate a religious practice, employers should always consider the essential functions of the job in question and then explore with the employee any possible accommodations so that the employee can still perform the essential functions of the job. In this case, there was no reasonable way to make an accommodation, and the hospital made the correct call.
Reference: Brown v. Hot Springs Nat’l Park Hosp., (E.D. Ark. No> 4:12-cv-00356 May 13, 2013)
If you have any questions, please contact Steve Lyman at slyman@wp.hallrender.com or your regular Hall Render attorney.
