Skip to main content

EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P.

7th CircuitMarch 31, 2021No. 20-1419Cited 7 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Rovner dissents
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
1442 Jobs
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

Walmart prevailed on summary judgment in this Title VII religious accommodation case. The court held that Walmart's offer of an alternative hourly management position satisfied its duty to accommodate Hedican's Sabbath observance, and that accommodating him as an assistant manager would impose undue hardship on the employer's operations.

What This Ruling Means

**EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P. - What Workers Should Know** This case involved a Walmart employee named Hedican who needed time off to observe his religious Sabbath. Hedican worked as an assistant manager but couldn't work during his Sabbath due to his religious beliefs. When Walmart couldn't accommodate his schedule in his current position, the company offered him a different hourly management job that would allow him to observe his Sabbath. Hedican refused this alternative position, and the situation led to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on his behalf. The court ruled in favor of Walmart. The judge decided that Walmart had fulfilled its legal obligation to accommodate Hedican's religious needs by offering him the alternative position. The court also found that keeping Hedican in his assistant manager role while allowing Sabbath time off would create too much operational difficulty for the store. **What this means for workers:** Employers must make reasonable efforts to accommodate your religious practices, but they're not required to keep you in your exact same job if it creates significant business problems. If your employer offers you a reasonable alternative position that accommodates your religious needs, that may satisfy their legal duty to you.

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

Similar Rulings

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
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant 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.