## Facts

- Susan Rose was a flight attendant employed by Midwest Express Airlines, Inc. (Midwest) and had a prior history of workplace disciplinary problems.
- On two separate flights, a coworker reported that Rose appeared to be asleep while she was supposed to be working.
- After the first report, Rose threatened the coworker and engaged in retaliatory conduct.
- For the first incident, Rose offered no explanation for why it appeared she had been sleeping.
- On the second flight, Rose claimed she had been praying—not sleeping—when the coworker saw her with her eyes closed.
- Midwest maintained a policy prohibiting flight attendants from sleeping or giving the appearance of sleeping while on duty.
- Midwest explained the policy as a safety measure because flight attendants must remain attentive and able to observe and respond to passenger needs.
- Rose identified as Christian and admitted her religious beliefs did not require prayer at any specific time and permitted her to pray with her eyes open.
- Rose acknowledged that many Midwest employees and managers were Christian; supervisors knew she prayed on flights and never told her to stop; and Midwest had not expressed anti-Christian bias.
- Midwest presented evidence that Rose never asked for a religious accommodation related to prayer and that it terminated another employee around the same time for violating the same policy.
- Midwest terminated Rose for violating the no-sleep/no-appearance-of-sleeping policy, and Rose sued alleging religious discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether Rose produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude Midwest terminated her because of religion, rather than for violating a neutral safety policy prohibiting sleeping or appearing to sleep while on duty.
2. Whether Midwest violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Rose’s claimed religious practice of praying with her eyes closed during flights, where Rose conceded her faith did not require eyes-closed prayer at a set time and where she did not request an accommodation.

## Decision

- The court granted Midwest’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held Rose failed to present evidence permitting a finding that Midwest’s stated reason for discharge—enforcement of its no-sleep/no-appearance-of-sleeping policy—was a cover for religious discrimination.
- The court rejected Rose’s accommodation theory because the record did not show a bona fide religious conflict with the policy and showed Rose did not put Midwest on notice of a need for accommodation by requesting one.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII religious disparate-treatment claim requires evidence supporting an inference that the employer took adverse action because of the employee’s religion; if the employer offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the employee must present evidence that the reason is pretextual.
- An employer may enforce a facially neutral, safety-based work rule, including one aimed at preventing sleeping or the appearance of sleeping in safety-sensitive work, absent proof the rule was applied as a means to discriminate on religion.
- A Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim generally requires: (1) a bona fide religious belief or practice that conflicts with a job requirement, (2) notice to the employer of the conflict (often through a request for accommodation), and (3) discipline or adverse action for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement.
- If an employee concedes their religion permits compliance with the work rule (for example, prayer with eyes open or at other times), the employee may fail to show a religious conflict that triggers an accommodation duty.
- Evidence that the employer tolerated the employee’s religious practice generally, lacked anti-religious statements or conduct, and disciplined other employees for the same rule violation supports summary judgment against a claim of religious bias.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for Midwest because the undisputed record showed Rose was terminated for violating a neutral flight-safety rule against sleeping or appearing to sleep, not because she was Christian, and Rose’s own testimony showed no faith-based requirement to pray with eyes closed at a specific time and no accommodation request that would trigger a Title VII duty to accommodate.


Rose v. Midwest Express Airlines, 2002 WL 31095361 (2002)