Daniel Snyder v. Arconic, Corp., a Delaware Corporation, et al.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 broadly SURKLELWVÀULQJDQHPSOR\HHEHFDXVHRIDQ\´DVSHFW>@RI religious observance and practice,” unless the employer shows that reasonably accommodating that practice would LPSRVHDQ´XQGXHKDUGVKLSµSee 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)  H M 7KDWPHDQV´>D@QHPSOR\HUPD\QRWPDNHDQ >LQGLYLGXDO·V@UHOLJLRXVSUDFWLFHFRQÀUPHGRURWKHUZLVHD factor in employment decisions,” without showing undue hardship. E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768, 773 (2015). In this case, the court of appeals and district court held that Daniel Snyder failed to establish a prima facie case DVDPDWWHURIODZZKHUHKHZDVÀUHGIRUPDNLQJDVLQJOH VWDWHPHQWWKHHPSOR\HU´FRQFHGH>G@ZDVUHOLJLRXVO\ motivated.” App.21a. Both courts held that Mr. Snyder failed to additionally VKRZ KH KDG D ´UHOLJLRXV EHOLHI WKDWFRQÁLFWVZLWKDQHPSOR\PHQWUHTXLUHPHQWµDQGWKH district court held he failed to provide a priori notice of his religious expression. The courts reached these conclusions by applying a pre-Abercrombie a-textual judicial test for adjudicating claims of failure to accommodate religious practice. 7KHTXHVWLRQSUHVHQWHGLV :KHWKHUÀULQJDQHPSOR\HHEHFDXVHRIH[SUHVVLRQWKH HPSOR\HUXQGHUVWDQGVLVUHOLJLRXVO\PRWLYDWHGVXIÀFHVWR constitute a prima facie case under Abercrombie.