## Facts

- Kwasi Opuku-Boateng worked as a temporary Grain Inspector for the California Department of Food and Agriculture and sought a permanent Plant Quarantine Inspector position at a border-inspection station.
- He is a devout Seventh-day Adventist whose faith forbids secular work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday; he stated he would not work during that period under any circumstances.
- The civil service application asked whether religious beliefs prevented taking an examination on Saturday; he answered yes and ultimately was allowed to take the exam on Sunday after being scheduled for Saturday.
- He was selected for a permanent Plant Inspector position at the Yermo station, which operated 24/7 with rotating shifts; inspectors were expected to share undesirable weekend, holiday, and night shifts.
- To address the conflict, he proposed working Sundays, nights, and holidays and using voluntary shift-trading to avoid working during his Sabbath.
- The Department consulted his church and conducted an informal coworker poll about willingness to trade; the poll indicated no regular willingness to trade, but its wording and reliability were questioned.
- The Department denied the requested accommodation and did not hire him for the permanent position.
- He sued under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate his religious practice.

## Issues

1. Whether the State carried its Title VII burden to show that accommodating Opuku-Boateng’s Sabbath observance would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of its business.
2. Whether the State’s accommodation efforts and evidence were legally sufficient to defeat liability after Opuku-Boateng established a prima facie case of religious discrimination.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment for the State and remanded.
- The court agreed Opuku-Boateng established a prima facie case: a bona fide religious belief conflicted with a job requirement, the State had notice, and he was denied employment because of the conflict.
- The court held the State did not prove undue hardship and did not show legally sufficient good-faith efforts to achieve a reasonable accommodation.
- The court found the State’s hardship assertions largely speculative and not supported by evidence of more than minimal cost or disruption.
- The court concluded the informal poll did not reliably establish that shift-trading or other scheduling adjustments were unworkable.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s (or applicant’s) religious practice unless the employer proves the accommodation would cause undue hardship.
- After a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of religious conflict, notice, and adverse action, the employer bears the burden to show either reasonable accommodation or undue hardship.
- Undue hardship requires more than generalized assumptions; the employer must show actual operational difficulty or expense beyond minimal cost.
- A preference for equal distribution of undesirable shifts does not, by itself, establish undue hardship where workable alternatives may preserve overall fairness.
- An employer’s accommodation inquiry must be genuine and supported by reliable evidence when rejecting proposed scheduling or shift-trading options.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that California violated Title VII by refusing to hire Opuku-Boateng based on his Sabbath observance because the State failed to demonstrate that a reasonable accommodation would have imposed undue hardship, and it remanded for further proceedings on relief.


Opuku-Boateng v. California, 95 F.3d 1461 (9th Cir. 1996)