Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

D.D.C.January 18, 2013No. Civil Action No. 2011-1170Cited 4 times
Defendant WinRent-A-Center, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted Rent-A-Center's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the EEOC's failure-to-accommodate claim with prejudice. The court found that accommodating the employee's Saturday religious observance would cause undue hardship to the employer's business operations.

What This Ruling Means

**EEOC v. Rent-A-Center: Religious Accommodation Case** This case involved a dispute over religious accommodation at Rent-A-Center. An employee needed Saturdays off to observe their religion, but the company refused to provide this accommodation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Rent-A-Center on behalf of the employee, claiming the company failed to reasonably accommodate the worker's religious beliefs as required by federal law. The court ruled in favor of Rent-A-Center and dismissed the case entirely. The judge determined that giving the employee Saturdays off would create an "undue hardship" for the company's business operations. This means the court found that accommodating the religious request would be too difficult or costly for the employer to manage. **What this means for workers:** While employers must try to accommodate employees' religious practices, they don't have to do so if it significantly disrupts their business. Workers seeking religious accommodations should understand that courts will weigh their needs against the employer's operational requirements. If an accommodation would cause major scheduling problems or excessive costs, employers may legally deny the request. Workers in similar situations should document their accommodation requests and consider whether alternative solutions might work for both parties.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Ruiz
S.D.N.Y.Oct 2023
Defendant Win
Hutson
M.D. Ga.Dec 2001
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.