David Virts was an “over-the-road” truck driver at Consolidated Freightways Corp.’s Nashville, Tenn., terminal. Virts refused to go on overnight “sleeper runs” with female drivers because it would violate his religious beliefs. Now a federal appeals court has ruled that the trucking company wasn’t required to accommodate Virts because it would have been an undue hardship.
Company Dispatch System
Consolidated used a dispatch procedure in which drivers were called in order of seniority and given a choice of available runs. Under the union contract, drivers couldn’t refuse a run if called by the dispatcher. And if the dispatcher reached the end of the list before all runs were dispatched, they would draft drivers, in order of least seniority, to take runs they did not request.
Driver Refuses Sleeper Run
Virts hadn’t placed restrictions on the type of runs he would accept, including sleeper runs in which two drivers are dispatched together in a sleeper truck. But when he discovered that he was paired on a sleeper run with fellow driver Linda Carter, he said it was against his religious convictions to travel with a woman. Virts, a born-again Christian, said sleeper runs with a female partner could lead to lustful thoughts and sexual temptations because drivers undress in the sleeper cab.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Employer Says Accommodation Would Violate Seniority Rules
Virts got another sleeper team to swap, but the switch violated union seniority provisions. Virts was informed that if he was paired with a female driver on a sleeper run in the future, he’d have to accept it.
Virts was next assigned to a sleeper run with a female driver more than two years later and again refused the dispatch. When he didn’t report for the run, Consolidated considered him to have voluntarily quit. But after Virts filed a union grievance, his discipline was reduced to a warning and a suspension without pay.
Virts met with Consolidated managers and union personnel to try to work out a solution to his religious objections and requested that he not be asked to go on any more sleeper runs with females. But Consolidated’s position was that there wasn’t an accommodation it could make that wouldn’t violate the union contract’s seniority provisions. And the union wouldn’t agree to change the collective bargaining agreement.
Driver Sues For Religious Bias
More than a year later, Virts was discharged for dishonesty over an unauthorized change on his pay sheet. He filed a grievance and was eventually returned to work with back pay and full seniority and benefits restored.
But Virts turned around and sued Consolidated for religious discrimination. The trial court ruled that Consolidated could not have reasonably accommodated Virts’ objection to going on sleeper runs with females without violating the union contract and affecting the shift and job preferences and contract rights of other employees.
Violating Seniority Constitutes Undue Hardship
Now, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the accommodation Virts requested would place an undue hardship on his employer and, therefore, wasn’t required under federal anti-bias laws. Virts had suggested that his name be skipped over or dropped from the dispatch list when he would be paired with a female driver. But the court said this would require his employer to violate the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreement because it could require a more senior driver to take Virts’ run. And the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an employer doesn’t have to carve out a special exception to its seniority system to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs.
Adverse Impact On Co-Workers
What’s more, the fact that the requested accommodation could adversely affect Virts’ co-workers was also sufficient to constitute an undue hardship, the court said. That’s because the drivers required to take Virts’ place might have to take a less profitable run or a run resulting in less time off or less rest between runs.
Handling Accommodation Requests
This ruling is consistent with a previous case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, holding that you don’t have to ignore a valid seniority system to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices. But keep in mind that there may be circumstances when you must try to accommodate an employee’s requests, such as when your seniority system isn’t applied consistently.
To avoid disputes, requests for religious accommodation should always be handled carefully. If an employee informs you of a religious scheduling conflict, offer an accommodation whenever possible—although you don’t have to accept the employee’s proposal if another option would satisfy their religious needs and minimize inconvenience to you. Also, note that you’re not required to give an employee preferential treatment over co-workers or impose more than a minimal burden on your other employees. Finally, if you conclude that no accommodation is appropriate, be sure to thoroughly document your reasons.