1. In your opinion, were the alternatives suggested by the court of appeals viable for TWA? Why or why not?

2. Does it seem inconsistent to prohibit religious discrimination, yet say that collective bargaining agreements cannot be violated to accommodate religious differences? Explain.

3. If you had been Hardison’s manager and he came to you with this conflict, how would you have handled it? Does that change now that you have seen the Court’s decision? If so, how?

Issue: Whether the employer must accommodate an employee’s religious conflict at all costs in order to avoid violating Title VII.

Facts: Employer was unable to accommodate employee’s religious conflict of working on the Sabbath without undue hardship because employee worked in a department that operated 24 hours a day every day overhauling and maintaining airplanes. Each of the three proposed alternatives was rejected as it constituted an undue hardship on the employer.

Decision: The Court of Appeals held that TWA had not made reasonable efforts to accommodate Hardison’s religious views. In its view, the TWA had rejected three reasonable alternatives, any of which would have satisfied its obligation without undue hardship. First, within the framework of the seniority system, TWA could have permitted Hardison to work a four-day week, utilizing in his place a supervisor or another worker on duty. Second, also within the bounds of the collective-bargaining contract the company could have filled Hardison’s Saturday shift from other available personnel competent to do the job elsewhere. Third, TWA could have arranged a “swap between Hardison and another employee either for another shift or for the Sabbath days.”