## Facts

- Walmart operated a 24-hour store in Hayward, Wisconsin, with peak demand on Fridays and Saturdays during the summer tourism season.
- Walmart staffed the store with eight full-time assistant managers and additional hourly managers and supervisors.
- Walmart offered Edward Hedican a full-time assistant manager position.
- After the offer, Hedican disclosed that, as a Seventh-day Adventist, he could not work between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.
- Walmart used a rotating schedule system for assistant managers to distribute weekend work and ensure each assistant manager gained experience across all schedules and departments.
- The evidence showed assistant managers averaged six weekend shifts every ten weeks; exempting one assistant manager from the Friday-sundown-to-Saturday-sundown period would increase weekend assignments for the remaining assistant managers and disrupt the rotation.
- Walmart withdrew the assistant-manager offer but invited Hedican to apply for alternative hourly management or supervisory positions that did not follow the same rotation and might be scheduled around his Sabbath.
- Hedican did not pursue an hourly position and filed a charge; the EEOC sued alleging failure to reasonably accommodate religion under Title VII.

## Issues

1. Whether Walmart provided a reasonable accommodation under Title VII by offering Hedican the chance to pursue alternative hourly management roles rather than altering the assistant-manager scheduling system.
2. Whether exempting Hedican from all Friday-sundown-to-Saturday-sundown work in the assistant-manager role (via fixed weekday assignment, shift-swapping, or leave-based avoidance) would impose an undue hardship under the then-governing “more than de minimis cost” standard.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Walmart.
- The court held Walmart did not violate Title VII by declining to hire Hedican into the assistant-manager role with a complete Sabbath exemption.
- The court held Walmart satisfied its accommodation obligation by offering Hedican an opportunity to pursue alternative hourly management positions that could avoid the scheduling conflict.
- The court held the EEOC’s proposed accommodations for the assistant-manager role would impose undue hardship as a matter of law given the increased burdens on other managers and disruption of the rotation system.
- The court concluded the material facts about staffing needs and scheduling impacts were undisputed, making summary judgment appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Under the then-controlling Title VII framework, an employer need not provide a religious accommodation that would impose more than a de minimis cost on business operations.
- A reasonable accommodation does not require the employer to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation or guarantee a particular job or schedule when essential job requirements conflict with religious practice.
- An employer may satisfy its accommodation duty by offering alternative positions when accommodating the requested position would require significant scheduling changes or materially increase co-worker burdens.
- Requiring other employees to assume additional weekend assignments, and dismantling an established rotation system designed to distribute work and develop experience, can constitute undue hardship under the de minimis-cost standard.
- When operational impacts of proposed accommodations are supported by undisputed evidence, undue hardship and accommodation adequacy may be resolved on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that Walmart reasonably addressed an applicant’s Sabbath-based scheduling restriction by offering consideration for alternative hourly roles and that exempting him from the assistant-manager weekend rotation would have imposed undue hardship under the governing Title VII standard, warranting summary judgment for Walmart.


EEOC v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 992 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2021)