## Facts

- Martin-Marietta and United Steelworkers of America, Local 8141, operated under a collective bargaining agreement containing a union-shop clause requiring discharge of employees who did not join the union or pay required dues/fees.
- Herman O. Tooley, Edward J. Helt, and Arnold G. Bakke were employees and Seventh-day Adventists who held sincere religious beliefs prohibiting union membership and payment of union dues or service fees.
- The employees notified the employer and union and proposed paying an amount equal to dues to a mutually acceptable charity as an alternative.
- The union refused the charity-payment proposal and maintained the employees were subject to discharge under the union-shop clause.
- After administrative exhaustion, the employees sued the employer and union under Title VII for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-2(c), and 2000e(j).
- The district court enjoined the employer and union from discharging the employees for nonpayment of dues so long as they made equivalent contributions to a mutually acceptable charity.
- The union appealed, asserting the proposed accommodation was unreasonable, imposed undue hardship, and (as required by Title VII) violated the Establishment Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s religious-accommodation requirement, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j), required the employer and union to accept a substituted-charity payment arrangement for employees who objected to union dues on religious grounds absent undue hardship.
2. Whether requiring such an accommodation under Title VII violated the Establishment Clause.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction.
- The court held the substituted-charity arrangement was a permissible accommodation on this record and that the employer and union failed to show undue hardship.
- The court rejected the Establishment Clause challenge, holding that enforcing Title VII’s accommodation requirement in this manner was a permissible legislative accommodation of religion.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII requires employers and unions to make good-faith efforts to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs and practices unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship.
- Permitting an employee who religiously objects to union membership or dues to pay an equivalent amount to a mutually acceptable charity can constitute a reasonable accommodation absent a showing of undue hardship.
- Statutory religious-accommodation requirements may be applied without violating the Establishment Clause when they operate as neutral accommodations of religious exercise rather than as governmental advancement of religion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction preventing discharge of employees who religiously objected to union dues where they agreed to pay equivalent amounts to charity, concluding Title VII required the accommodation absent undue hardship and that the remedy did not violate the Establishment Clause.


Tooley v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 648 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1981)