432 U.S. 63 (1977)
TWA operates a large maintenance and overhaul base in Kansas City, Missouri.1 On June 5, 1967, Larry G. Hardison was hired by TWA to work as a clerk in the Stores Department at its Kansas City base.2 The Stores Department must operate twenty-four hours per day throughout the year, and Hardison was subject to a seniority system contained in a collective-bargaining agreement that TWA maintains with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.3
In the spring of 1968 Hardison began to study the religion known as the Worldwide Church of God.4 One of the tenets of that religion requires observing the Sabbath by refraining from work from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday.5 Hardison informed Everett Kussman, the manager of the Stores Department, of his religious conviction.6 Kussman agreed that the union steward should seek a job swap for Hardison or a change of days off, that Hardison would have his religious holidays off whenever possible if he agreed to work traditional holidays when asked, and that Kussman would try to find Hardison another job more compatible with his beliefs.7 The problem was temporarily solved when Hardison transferred to the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift.8
Hardison later bid for and received a transfer to Building 2 on the day shift, where he ranked second from the bottom on a separate seniority list.9 When asked to work Saturdays during a fellow employee's vacation, TWA agreed to permit the union to seek a change of work assignments, but the union was unwilling to violate the seniority provisions of the contract and Hardison had insufficient seniority to bid for a shift with Saturdays off.10 A proposal that Hardison work only four days a week was rejected because his job was essential and alternatives would impair operations or require premium wages.11 Hardison refused to report for work on Saturdays, a transfer to the twilight shift proved unavailing, and after a hearing he was discharged on grounds of insubordination.12
Hardison brought this action for injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against TWA and the union after invoking administrative remedies under Title VII.13 Following a bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the defendants.14 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment for TWA.15 Because it did not appear that Hardison had attacked directly the judgment in favor of the union, the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment without ruling on its substantive merits.16 The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the petitions filed by TWA and the union.17
Whether Title VII requires an employer to accommodate an employee's religious practices by exempting the employee from Saturday work despite an established seniority system in a collective-bargaining agreement?18
Section 701(j) of Title VII requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees' religious observances short of undue hardship, but section 703(h) protects the routine application of bona fide seniority systems absent discriminatory intent, and the accommodation duty does not require violating such systems or treating employees unequally on the basis of religion.19
No. The established facts show that Hardison lacked sufficient seniority in Building 2 to bid for Saturday-free shifts, the union refused to violate the collective-bargaining agreement's seniority provisions, TWA authorized shift swaps and held meetings but could not arrange them without breaching the contract or incurring premium wages, and alternatives such as a four-day week would have impaired essential operations or required unequal treatment of other employees.20
Title VII does not require an employer to exempt an employee from Saturday work by overriding a seniority system or imposing more than de minimis costs.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Marshall argued that the majority's interpretation effectively nullifies the statutory requirement for reasonable accommodations under Title VII.22 He noted that Congress had expressly rejected the view that neutral rules need never yield to religious practices.23 Marshall further observed that TWA failed to explore voluntary trades or other low-cost options before claiming undue hardship.24
This approach contradicts the legislative intent behind the 1972 amendments to protect religious observers.25 He explained that the accommodation issue arises precisely when a neutral rule conflicts with an employee's religious practices, and granting an exemption always allocates a privilege according to religious beliefs unless the employer repeals the rule entirely.26 The statute plainly requires such accommodations unless undue hardship would result, making the majority's position untenable as a matter of law.27