The U.S. Supreme Court handed Walgreens a mountainous put off on Monday by turning away an charm from a fired Florida employee who acknowledged he couldn’t work on Saturdays on story of of his religion.
Darrell Patterson, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, sued the pharmacy chain after skipping out on a fundamental practising session he was as soon as presupposed to high-tail. He argued his religion prohibited him from working on Saturdays to peep the Sabbath, which begins at sundown on Friday and ends at sundown on Saturday.
Pretty than working on Saturday, Patterson came in a few days later and held the practising session. Despite the extend, his Orlando branch composed met the inside of closing date position by the firm on practising.
In 2014, Patterson sued Walgreens in federal courtroom, accusing the Illinois-based thoroughly mostly retailer of violating his religious rights by no longer adequately accommodating his no-Saturdays demand after which trying to demote him without any guarantee he would no longer be scheduled to work Saturdays within the extinguish.
Walgreens argued that it tried to accommodate Patterson’s religious beliefs multiple instances since he joined the firm in 2005.
The case, which has been closely adopted, tested the allowances corporations must compose for workers below Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and pitted industry interests against religious rights.
Walgreens argued that it tried to accommodate Patterson’s religious beliefs multiple instances since he joined the firm in 2005. Walgreens additionally argued that permitting Patterson to safe off on Saturdays assign an “undue burden” on the firm on story of it can must withhold extra Saturday practising sessions down the line.
In 2018, the Atlanta-based thoroughly mostly 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Walgreens and ruled the retailer had made ample efforts to accommodate Patterson and acknowledged Walgreens was as soon as no longer required to ensure he would by no manner be scheduled to work on a Saturday.
Patterson appealed and requested the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in, arguing that an real looking lodging requires employers to do away with conflicts between work and religious beliefs. Walgreens argued that the regulation requires handiest that employers “reasonably accommodate” workers, no longer “thoroughly accommodate” them.