Bruce HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Citations: 851 F.2d 261; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9034; 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,117; 47 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 295; 1988 WL 67141Docket: 87-6296

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 1, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bruce Hudson appeals a judgment favoring Western Airlines, Inc. in a Title VII case asserting religious discrimination. The Ninth Circuit affirms the lower court's decision. Western Airlines operated continuously and staffed flights with flight attendants as per a collective bargaining agreement with the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA). Each month, individual schedules for attendants were created, detailing specific flights or reserve duty days. Reserve attendants, categorized as "call-in" and "ready" reserves, were available for assignments based on their duty periods.

Schedules were developed collaboratively between Western and the AFA and distributed to attendants three weeks in advance. Attendants bid for preferred flight blocks based on seniority, with senior attendants typically receiving more desirable assignments, including weekends off. The agreement allowed attendants to adjust their schedules for personal reasons, including religious observance, through trades with colleagues. Western supported this trading process but did not control or mandate trades.

Blockholders could trade scheduled flights for "open" flights, a privilege not extended to reserves, who lacked scheduled flights for trading. Attendants with insufficient seniority could request base transfers to improve their seniority status, with such requests granted based on seniority as openings became available. The collective bargaining agreement detailed attendants' vacation, sick leave, emergency leave, and personal leave policies. Failure to report for scheduled flights led to a progressive disciplinary process involving warnings and potential suspension before termination.

Hudson's initial training covered bidding, trading, and transfer procedures, and she acknowledged understanding the collective bargaining agreement. She bid for a position at the Los Angeles base, where her low seniority relegated her to ready reserve status, though she was exempt from weekend work during her first six months. Hudson, a church member observing a Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, communicated her religious scheduling needs to her supervisor and union representative, who explored contract options to accommodate her.

Over two years, Hudson managed to avoid Sabbath work through strategic bidding and taking personal leaves, but she did work on her Sabbath several times between August and November 1980. In June 1981, Hudson requested a transfer to the Honolulu base, believing it would help her scheduling issues, despite it resulting in a slight decrease in Sabbath-free work opportunities compared to staying in Los Angeles or transferring to Minneapolis. She had access to seniority information and was aware that Minneapolis would provide better scheduling options. After her transfer request, Hudson received a Saturday work assignment, which she successfully exchanged for a Thursday. Despite her seniority allowing her to bid on blocks with Fridays and Saturdays off, she chose a call-in reserve line that did not provide any Sabbath time off.

Hudson believed she could trade shifts using an "open book" policy but was informed by Los Angeles scheduling on July 2 that her request to do so was denied. After this, Hudson attempted to find someone to trade shifts with but was unsuccessful. She consulted Scott, the base flight attendant manager, who was unaware of any trading policy. He advised her to take emergency leave due to the late hour for contacting Los Angeles. Later, Scott clarified that trading with the open book was not permitted and that her options were limited to those in the collective bargaining agreement.

On July 9, Hudson was assigned a flight that conflicted with her religious observance of the Sabbath. After informing her shift supervisor, Wiles, of her refusal to accept the flight due to her beliefs, she was warned that such a refusal could lead to termination for insubordination. Hudson remained resolute in her refusal. The next day, she met with another supervisor, Shak, who reiterated the insubordination claim and terminated her despite Hudson's offer to take emergency leave, which would not have left the flight short-staffed.

Following her termination, the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) filed grievances against Western for both her termination and the denied trade request. Attempts at resolution were made, with Hudson suggesting alternatives to avoid flying on her Sabbath, all of which were rejected as violations of the collective bargaining agreement. An arbitration resulted in a ruling favoring Western, stating Hudson's proposals breached the agreement's seniority provisions.

Hudson also filed discrimination charges with the EEOC and DFEH, both of which were dismissed, and her unemployment claim was rejected. She contends that instead of termination, Western should have provided alternative options, including emergency leave, personal leave, job transfer, use of vacation time, or a lesser punishment than termination.

Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations for employees' religious beliefs unless such accommodations would impose undue hardship on the employer. Title VII aims to eliminate religious discrimination while balancing the Establishment Clause's prohibition against favoring religious beliefs over nonreligious ones. The Supreme Court cases Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison and Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. emphasize that accommodations should not result in undue hardship for the employer or negatively affect other employees.

Hudson disputes the district court's conclusion that the neutral, nondiscriminatory collective bargaining agreement constituted a reasonable accommodation for employees' religious beliefs. She contends that the agreement does not inherently offer reasonable accommodation and specifically did not address her request related to her Sabbath observance in July 1981. Hudson also argues that the court's ruling implies that such agreements automatically provide reasonable accommodations, disregarding specific case facts.

However, the district court found that Western and AFA responded appropriately to Hudson's concerns by directing her to the collective bargaining agreement, which included options for bidding on work schedules and trading days off. These provisions offered Hudson the opportunity to resolve her religious scheduling conflict while maintaining her employment.

The court analyzed the collective bargaining agreement in relation to Hudson's situation and determined that it adequately addressed her needs. Under Title VII, once an employer implements a reasonable accommodation system, they are not required to demonstrate that each employee’s specific requests would not cause undue hardship.

The trial court determined that the collective bargaining agreement offered Hudson reasonable accommodations to address her religious conflicts while maintaining her employment status. These findings, deemed factual, are not clearly erroneous and Hudson has not challenged their basis. Even if challenged, the accommodations provided are recognized under Title VII as reasonable, including shift trading, flexible scheduling, and job transfers. The court noted that these provisions enabled Hudson to resolve her religious conflict without jeopardizing her job, aligning with precedent established in Ansonia.

Hudson's failure to utilize the reasonable accommodations undermines her claim that Western violated Title VII by not offering further accommodations in July 1981. Title VII does not permit an employee to disregard existing accommodations and then seek additional ones after new conflicts arise. The court emphasized that once an employer has reasonably accommodated an employee's religious needs, the inquiry concludes, and further proof of undue hardship is unnecessary.

Hudson also alleged that Western imposed stricter discipline compared to employees who refused assignments for secular reasons; however, this argument was not raised at the trial level and will not be considered on appeal. 

Regarding attorneys' fees, Western sought costs under Title VII, but the trial court ruled it was not entitled to fees based on the frivolousness standard, a finding not cross-appealed by Western. While Western can claim fees for the appeal, the court found Hudson's continued litigation was not frivolous or unreasonable, indicating that a lack of success does not equate to bad faith.