Introduction

In the early 20th century, workers across the United States routinely lost job opportunities because their religious practices inconvenienced their employers.¹See, e.g., Jonathan D. Sarna, American Judaism: A History 162 (2004). Immigrants sought opportunity in America only to face a choice between their faith and their work.²Id. at 162–63. A generation ago, against this backdrop, Congress attempted to address this problem through Title VII.³See Robin Knauer Maril, Religiously Motivated Conduct and the Reasonable Accommodation Requirement Under Title VII: A New Framework for Analysis, 66 Vill. L. Rev. 731, 736 (2021).

But today, working-class Americans still lose jobs for requesting time off for their Sabbath.⁴See, e.g., EEOC v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 992 F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 2021) (holding that requiring an employer to interfere with its rotation system to permit a Seventh-day Adventist employee to take off on the Sabbath would impose more than de minimis harm). They still lose jobs for attending worship services.⁵See, e.g., Rojas v. GMD Airlines Servs., Inc., 254 F. Supp. 3d 281, 289, 297–98 (D.P.R. 2015) (holding that requiring an employer to allow a Pentecostal employee to take off Sunday shifts to attend weekly worship services would impose more than de minimis harm). And they still lose jobs for requesting variances from dress and grooming requirements.⁶See, e.g., Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 264 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding that requiring an employer to allow a Muslim employee to wear a headscarf would impose more than de minimis harm). Even more tragically, some have forsaken their religious practices to keep food on the table.⁷See infra notes 117­–118 and accompanying text. This is the distressing legacy of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison.⁸432 U.S. 63 (1977).

In Hardison, Trans World Airlines fired a clerk when he refused to work on his Saturday Sabbath.⁹Id. at 69. There, the Supreme Court interpreted Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guidelines on Title VII that required employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business.¹⁰Id. at 72. In a single line near the end of the opinion, the Court declared that “[t]o require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.”¹¹Id. at 84 (emphasis added). Because Hardison was fired before Congress added “undue hardship” to Title VII in 1972, it was actually the similarly worded EEOC guidelines from 1967 that were before the Court in Hardison.¹²See id. at 76, 76 n.11. That fact led Justice Thomas to suggest, “Hardison’s comment about the effect of the 1972 amendment was thus entirely beside the point.”¹³EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768, 787 n.* (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Regardless, Hardison’s de minimis take on the guidelines now defines Title VII’s “undue hardship” standard. Courts today uniformly interpret “undue hardship” in Title VII as anything more than a de minimis cost.¹⁴See, e.g., EEOC v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 992 F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 2021) (“Three Justices believe that Hardison’s definition of undue hardship . . . should be changed. . . . Our task, however, is to apply Hardison unless the Justices themselves discard it.”). As a consequence, generations of religious Americans have been denied Title VII’s promise of a workplace free of needless discrimination.

Three recent petitions for certiorari have asked the Court to reconsider Hardison. In 2020, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas, concurred in denying certiorari to Patterson v. Walgreen Company¹⁵140 S. Ct. 685 (2020). and indicated that he would be open to reconsidering Hardison in an appropriate case.¹⁶Justice Alito agreed with the Solicitor General’s argument that the Court should reconsider Hardison’s de minimis standard in an appropriate case. See id. at 685 (Alito, J., joined by Gorsuch, J., and Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari); see also Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 19–22, Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 140 S. Ct. 685 (2020) (No. 18-349). The Court denied two more petitions in 2021, prompting a dissent by Justice Gorsuch that was joined by Justice Alito.¹⁷See Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 141 S. Ct. 1227 (2021) (Gorsuch, J., and Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2463 (2021).

In January 2023, the Court granted certiorari to Groff v. DeJoy.¹⁸143 S. Ct. 646 (2023) (mem.). Gerald Groff, a Christian who worked for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), believes keeping the Sabbath holy is his sacred obligation. See Groff v. DeJoy, 35 F.4th 162, 164 (3d Cir. 2022). Initially, USPS did not require employees like Groff to work on Sundays. Id. at 165. But that changed in 2013 when USPS contracted to deliver packages for Amazon. Id. USPS argued it did not need to accommodate Groff’s religious practice because doing so would have imposed more than a de minimis cost by violating a collective bargaining agreement and straining Groff’s fellow employees. Brief for Defendant-Appellee at 49–66, Groff, 35 F.4th 162 (No. 21-1900). The district court held for USPS, and the Third Circuit affirmed. Groff, 35 F.4th at 176. Judge Hardiman argued in dissent that “a burden on coworkers isn’t the same thing as a burden on the employer’s business”—and the text of Title VII only requires the latter. Id. at 177 (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (emphasis added); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Groff presents two questions: (1) whether the “Court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing Title VII religious accommodations stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,” and (2) “[w]hether an employer may demonstrate ‘undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business’ under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee’s coworkers rather than the business itself.”¹⁹Petition for Writ of Certiorari at i, Groff, 143 S. Ct. 646 (No. 21-1900).

Groff presents a typical case: a working-class employee with an uncommon religious practice is forced to choose between his religious practice and his job because an accommodation would impose “more than a de minimis cost.”²⁰See Groff, 35 F.4th at 175.

Amicus briefs and petitions for certiorari in the recent cases asking the Court to reconsider Hardison have argued that those who practice minority faiths are overrepresented in Title VII religious accommodation claims from the past two decades.²¹See generally Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner, Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 141 S. Ct. 1227 (2021) (No. 19-1388); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2463 (2021) (No. 19-1461); Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner, Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 140 S. Ct. 685 (2020) (No. 18-349). Because requested accommodations are often based on uncommon religious practices that do not match American cultural norms, employers often don’t have existing mechanisms to accommodate those practices, and courts are thus led to conclude that they impose “more than a de minimis cost” on employers.²²The petition for certiorari in Dalberiste v. GLE Associates, Inc. showed that minority faiths (including Sabbatarian Christian sects) succeed on appeal in religious accommodation cases about half as often as non-minority faiths. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 29–30, Dalberiste, 141 S. Ct. 2463  (No. 19-1461). In the three reported religious accommodation cases to reach the circuits since that petition was filed, the employer prevailed each time. See Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., 808 F. App’x 351, 356 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding for the employer over a Muslim employee’s requested accommodation); EEOC v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 992 F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 2021) (holding for the employer over a Seventh-day Adventist employee’s requested accommodation); Groff, 35 F.4th at 175 (holding for the employer over a Sabbatarian Christian employee’s requested accommodation). “In short, members of minority faiths—who are involved in nearly 50% of all religious-accommodation appeals—are substantially less likely than members of non-minority faiths to have their rights vindicated.” Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 30, Dalberiste, 141 S. Ct. 2463 (No. 19-1461).

This Article goes beyond the often-made point about Hardison’s impact on religious minorities. It instead looks at Hardison’s impact on those in working-class occupations. Research shows that over 80% of religious accommodation cases over the past two decades involved working-class Americans.²³See infra notes 60–61 and accompanying text. Those employees are more likely to require religious accommodations due to inflexible job requirements like mandatory uniforms and restrictive schedules.²⁴See, e.g., Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 258, 262 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding that requiring a police department to modify its uniform policy to accommodate a Muslim employee would impose more than de minimis harm); Robert J. Friedman, Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: The Persistent Polarized Struggle, 11 Tenn. J. Bus. L. 143, 158–59 (2010). But when employers can deny accommodations under a de minimis standard, it is often easier to terminate than to accommodate those religious employees.

This Article proceeds in three parts. First, we sketch the history of Hardison’s break from the text and meaning of Title VII’s “undue hardship” standard. Second, we describe our findings that over 80% of religious accommodation litigants under Hardison are in working-class occupations, and we consider how their struggles compound when they are also members of minority faiths. Third, we argue that the Court should not fall back on stare decisis in hopes that Congress will rectify Hardison’s error. Rather, the Court should correct its own erroneous caselaw and return Title VII’s protection to those who need it most.

I.      Hardison Has Prevented America from Fully Realizing Title VII’s Promise of a Workplace Free of Religious Discrimination

Americans have long connected the freedom to work and the freedom to worship. For example, Alexander Hamilton believed that “a perfect equality of religious privileges,” more than “mere religious toleration,” would encourage skilled workers to “flock from Europe to the [U]nited [S]tates to pursue their own trades or professions.”²⁵Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures (Dec. 5, 1791), in 5 The Founders’ Constitution 95 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1986); see also James Madison, Property (Mar. 29, 1792), in 1 The Founders’ Constitution 598 (describing the freedom to work and freedom of worship as property rights).

History teaches that this aspiration has been elusive. For example, the combination of a Monday–Saturday work week and “strictly enforced” Sunday closure laws had a particularly devastating effect on the lives of Jewish immigrants.²⁶Sarna, supra note 1, at 162. “[U]nsympathetic employers” told their Jewish employees, “if you don’t come in on Saturday, don’t bother coming in on Monday.”²⁷Id.; see also Jews in America: Shabbat as Social Reform (1925), Jewish Virtual Library, https://perma.cc/EQ4Q-VDBR (“Almost no employers—even Jewish employers—honored Saturday as a day of rest.”).

Others share in that struggle. Muslims, Sikhs, Seventh-day Adventists, and many others face religious discrimination in the workplace simply because their religious practices are uncommon.²⁸See Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner at 17–19, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (S. Ct. argued Apr. 18, 2023) (detailing Hardison’s disproportionate effect on religious minorities). The petitioners in recent cases asking the Court to reconsider Hardison exemplify typical litigants: a Jehovah’s Witness service dispatcher;²⁹Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 952 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1227 (2021). a Sabbatarian industrial hygienist;³⁰Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs., Inc., 814 F. App’x 495 (11th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2463 (2021). a Sabbatarian trainer at Walgreens;³¹Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 727 F. App’x 581 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 685 (2020). and a U.S. Postal Service employee who wishes to observe the Sabbath in accordance with his religious beliefs.³²Groff v. DeJoy, 35 F.4th 162 (3d Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 646 (2023).

Congress passed Title VII to eliminate such discrimination. But the relief was short-lived. Only five years after Congress strengthened Title VII’s protections, Hardison placed working-class religious minorities back in the position of their immigrant ancestors—at the mercy of their employers.³³See Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 30, Dalberiste, 141 S. Ct. 2463 (No. 19-1461) (“Employers . . . know they can make almost any request for an accommodation sound like it will impose more than de minimis hardship, and therefore . . . they do not even try to accommodate religious employees—especially members of minority faiths.”).

A.      Congress Amended Title VII to Protect Religious Minorities from “Generally Applicable” Employment Practices

The contrast between Hardison’s de minimis interpretation and the text of Title VII³⁴See, e.g., Groff, 35 F.4th at 176 n.1 (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (questioning “whether simple English usage permits ‘undue hardship’ to be interpreted to mean ‘more than de minimis cost,’ particularly when such a reading can ‘effectively nullify[ ]’ Title VII’s promise of religious accommodation”) (quoting Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 89, 93 n.6 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting)). is even more troubling when one considers the history of the 1972 amendment.³⁵See Debbie N. Kaminer, Title VII’s Failure to Provide Meaningful and Consistent Protection of Religious Employees: Proposals for an Amendment, 21 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 575, 589 (2000) (“Despite the fact that § 701(j) was enacted for the express purpose of protecting Sabbatarians, the majority determined that the statute’s legislative history was of ‘little assistance.’”). Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not mention religious accommodations for employees,³⁶See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). the EEOC issued guidance in 1966 that required employers to accommodate their employees’ religious practices.³⁷Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 31 Fed. Reg. 8370, 8370 (June 15, 1966) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1605 (1966)). The 1966 guidelines required employers to accommodate religious practices as long as doing so did not cause “serious inconvenience to the conduct of business.” Id. This guidance came in response to inquiries about how to treat employees whose religious beliefs affected their ability to follow a “regular workweek.”³⁸Id. The 1966 guidance identified Saturday Sabbatarians as the likely recipients of accommodations.³⁹Id. In 1967, the EEOC issued additional guidance that exempted employers from the accommodation requirement if accommodating an employee imposed an “undue hardship.”⁴⁰Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 32 Fed. Reg. 10298, 10298–99 (July 13, 1967) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1605 (1967)).

In response to intervening court decisions that had cast aside the 1967 Guidance and its “undue hardship” requirement,⁴¹Two decisions, Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Company, 429 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1970), and Riley v. Bendix Corporation, 330 F. Supp. 583 (M.D. Fla. 1971), discarded the 1967 guidelines’ “undue hardship” standard as being inconsistent with Title VII. See Sara L. Silbiger, Heaven Can Wait: Judicial Interpretation of Title VII’s Religious Accommodation Requirement Since Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 839, 843 n.33 (1985). The Sixth Circuit held in Dewey that Title VII protected employees only from religious discrimination, but it did not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s religious practice. Dewey, 429 F.2d at 334–35; see also id. at 334 (“The requirement of accommodation to religious beliefs is contained only in the EEOC Regulations, which in our judgment are not consistent with the Act.”). And in Riley, a district court came to the same conclusion, noting that the EEOC had never expressly repealed its statement in the 1966 guidelines that an employer is free “‘to establish a normal work week . . . generally applicable to all employees,’ notwithstanding that such a schedule ‘may not operate with uniformity in its effect upon the religious observances of his employees.’” Riley, 330 F. Supp. at 589. Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1972.⁴²See Maril, supra note 3, at 745. The Act codified the 1967 guidance and added the “undue hardship” language to the statute.⁴³42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). There, too, the central focus of the amendment—which passed the Senate unanimously—was protecting observers of the Saturday Sabbath.⁴⁴Silbiger, supra note 4140, at 842; see 118 Cong. Rec. S2515/H1746, 705–06 (Senate ed. Jan. 21, 1972) (statement of Sen. Randolph) (drawing attention to the struggles of Orthodox Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, and Seventh-day Baptists due to, among other things, the American system becoming “more pluralistic and more industrialized”); see also 118 Cong. Rec. S2515/H1746, D8 (daily digest Jan. 21, 1972. Thus, Congress affirmed that employers must provide religious accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

B.      Reliance On the Hardison Standard Has Enfeebled the 1972 Amendment’s Protections

Hardison’s facts presented the precise situation the EEOC and Congress had contemplated in the 1966 and 1967 guidance and the 1972 amendment: a Saturday Sabbatarian who wished to observe the Sabbath in accordance with his religion, subject to an otherwise “regular” workweek.⁴⁵Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 31 Fed. Reg. 8370, 8370 (June 15, 1966) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1605) (1966)); Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 32 Fed. Reg. 10298, 10298 (July 13, 1967) (codified at 29 C.F.R. pt. 1605 (1967)); 118 Cong. Rec. S2515/H1746, 705–06 (Senate ed. Jan. 21, 1972) (statement of Sen. Randolph). Larry G. Hardison was a clerk in a Trans World Airlines’ (“TWA”) store department who, along with his fellow employees, was subject to a collective-bargaining seniority system.⁴⁶Hardison v. Trans World Airlines, 375 F. Supp. 877 (W.D. Mo. 1974), rev’d, 527 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975), rev’d, 423 U.S. 63 (1977). When TWA scheduled Hardison to work on his Saturday Sabbath, Hardison refused to work.⁴⁷Id., 432 U.S. at 69. Rather than accommodate him, which TWA alleged would violate the seniority system, the company fired Hardison for insubordination.⁴⁸Id. The district court held for TWA, and the Eighth Circuit reversed.⁴⁹Id. at 69­­–70.

At the core of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardison was the surprising conclusion that, despite the 1972 amendment’s plain text and history, requiring the employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off [was] an undue hardship.”⁵⁰See id. at 84–85; compare id. at 84–85 with id. at 89 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“[T]he Court today, in rejecting any accommodation that involves preferential treatment, follows the Dewey decision in direct contravention of congressional intent.”). As many have explained, the phrase “de minimis cost” invokes a standard that is significantly more deferential to employers than the plain meaning of “undue hardship” suggests.⁵¹See, e.g., Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 141 S. Ct. 1227, 1228 (2021) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“Hardison’s de minimis cost test does not appear in the statute. The Court announced that standard in a single sentence with little explanation or supporting analysis. Neither party before the Court had even argued for the rule.”); Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 140 S. Ct. 685, 685 (2020) (Alito, J., concurring in denial of certiorari) (“I agree . . . that we should reconsider the proposition, endorsed by the opinion in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, that Title VII does not require an employer to make any accommodation for an employee’s practice of religion if doing so would impose more than a de minimis burden.”) (citation omitted); see also Groff v. DeJoy, 35 F.4th 162, 176 n.1 (3d Cir. 2022) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (echoing Justice Marshall’s Hardison dissent in “question[ing] whether simple English usage permits undue hardship to be interpreted to mean more than de minimis cost, particularly when such a reading can effectively nullify Title VII’s promise of religious accommodation” (internal quotations omitted) (cleaned up)).

That decision has scarred the Title VII religious accommodation landscape. Not only does Hardison harm minority faiths, it damages the working-class Americans who need Title VII’s protection the most.

II.      Working-Class People of Minority Faiths Need Title VII’s Protection from Religious Discrimination the Most

It is well-known that Hardison often hurts those who practice minority faiths. As others have observed, “The irony (and tragedy) of decisions like Hardison is that they most often harm religious minorities—people who seek to worship their own God, in their own way, and on their own time.”⁵²Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 952 F.3d 821, 829 (6th Cir. 2020) (Thapar, J., concurring).

In support of recent petitions asking the Court to reconsider the Hardison standard, parties and amici have filed briefs collecting data on religious accommodation cases decided on summary judgment motions using the “undue hardship” standard over the past two decades.⁵³See Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner at 17–19, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (S. Ct. argued Apr. 18, 2023); Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner at 15­–17, Small, 141 S. Ct. 1227 (No. 19-1388); Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 27–31, Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2463 (2021) (No. 19-1461); Brief of Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of the Petition at 23–25, Patterson, 140 S. Ct. 685 (No. 18-349). Based on that data, those briefs conclude that although minority faiths and Saturday Sabbatarians make up a small portion of the population, they constitute a majority of the litigants in religious accommodations cases.⁵⁴See, e.g., Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner at 17–19, Groff, No. 22-174.

For example, those briefs found that while practicing non-Christian faiths⁵⁵“Non-Christian faiths” includes Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hebrew Israelites, Rastafarians, African religions, and idiosyncratic faiths. See id. at 18. constituted only 5.9% of the American population in 2014, they represented 35.6% of accommodation cases through 2023.⁵⁶Id. at 18–19. That metric rises to 62.1% of cases when one includes minority sects of Christianity that observe the Sabbath on Saturday, such as Seventh-day Adventists.⁵⁷Id. at 19. What’s more, one brief showed that members of minority faiths prevail on appeal only half as often (14.3%) as members of non-minority faiths (30.7%).⁵⁸Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 29–30, Dalberiste, 141 S. Ct. 2463 (No. 19-1461).

A closer look at those religious accommodation cases reveals another disturbing pattern: litigants are overwhelmingly likely to be working-class Americans—the ones who need Title VII’s protection most.⁵⁹Lucy V. Katz, Caesar, God and Mammon: Business and the Religion Clauses, 22 Gonz. L. Rev. 327, 338 (1986) (“[E]mployees who can obtain the voluntary cooperation of their colleagues or their employers are not in need of Title VII’s protection. Those workers, and there are many, whose employers are willing to arrange their work to fit their religion do not invoke the statute. They also are unlikely to be found in the blue collar ranks, where most weekend work is required, and where scheduling is most rigid.”).

A.      Working-Class Employees Litigated More Than 80% of Religious Accommodation Cases Decided on Summary Judgment Since 2000

Litigants in occupations that require only “little” or “some” preparation, like a high school diploma and up to a year of experience (e.g., receptionists, cashiers, and correctional officers), represent more than 60% of the religious accommodations cases that made it to the federal courts between 2000 and 2023.⁶⁰See Appendix. Including occupations that require only “medium” preparation, like two years of experience and vocational school, on-the-job experience, or an associate’s degree (e.g., police officers, automotive mechanics, and nurses), the proportion rises to over 80% of the cases.⁶¹Id.

This data supports Justice Marshall’s prediction that “[a]ll Americans will be a little poorer until [Hardison] is erased.”⁶²Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting). But the data also demonstrates that the American working class has suffered the most.

Building on the prior work of parties and amici that determined how much Hardison has damaged minority faiths,⁶³See supra notes 53–58 and accompanying text. we compiled a universe of 140 religious accommodation cases decided between 2000 and 2023 on summary judgment motions relating to “undue hardship.” We then examined each case to identify the occupation of the litigant.⁶⁴See Appendix (collecting cases and identifying and categorizing litigant occupations); see also Brief of Amicus Curiae The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law in Support of Petitioner at 7–8, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (S. Ct. argued Apr. 18, 2023). First, we referred to the lists of cases compiled by amici and parties in prior cases asking the Court to reconsider Hardison: specifically, the amicus brief of the Christian Legal Society in Small and the petition for certiorari in Dalberiste. See Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner at app. 1–12, Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 141 S. Ct. 1227 (2021) (No. 19-1388); Petition for Writ of Certiorari at app. c 32a–51a, Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2463 (2021) (No. 19-1461). Then we updated that body of cases through the Westlaw database to include recent Title VII decisions from district and circuit courts, narrowing (as did the briefs in Small and Dalberiste) by summary judgment dispositions which dealt with “undue hardship.” Employment and religious classifications were derived from language in the court opinions or, when necessary, court filings. Cases were excluded from this count when, for example, the court found that the employee did not have a sincere religious belief, or that the employer reasonably accommodated the employee’s religious practice.

An analysis of these cases shows that working-class occupations⁶⁵See, e.g., Oren Cass et al., Work, Skills, Community: Restoring Opportunity for the Working Class, Opportunity America 12 (2018), https://perma.cc/5BQQ-XSFR (defining “working class” as “people with at least a high school diploma but less than a four-year college degree living in households between the 20th and 50th income percentiles”). represented 83.57% of litigants (117 out of 140). Occupations that usually require no more than a high school diploma and up to a year of experience accounted for 61.43% (86 out of 140) of litigants. Occupations that may require an associate’s degree or up to two years of training added 20% (28 out of 140). And occupations that may require a high school diploma or a few months of training accounted for another 2.14% of litigants (3 out of 140).

By contrast, managerial or professional occupations represented a total of 15% of litigants (21 out of 140). Occupations that usually require a bachelor’s degree or several years of experience make up 11.43% of litigants (16 out of 140). And occupations that often require graduate school or extensive experience make up 3.57% of litigants (5 out of 140).

To come to those conclusions, we first identified the occupation of the litigants in those cases. Then, we categorized the occupation according to federal standards that define and describe occupations using the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) system. The O*NET system is a “comprehensive database of occupational competency profiles” sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor.⁶⁶U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stat. 2018 Standard Occupational Classification User Guide 21 (2017), https://perma.cc/MG22-99HC. O*NET is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Standard Occupational Classification system, which also “classif[ies] workers and jobs into occupational categories” and is used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal agencies.⁶⁷Id. at 2, 21–22.

O*NET assigns occupations to one of five “job zones” that correspond to the level of education, related experience, and on-the-job training required for that occupation.⁶⁸See O*NET OnLine Help: Job Zones, O*NET OnLine, https://perma.cc/C7RE-R63B; see also Browse by Job Zone, O*NET OnLine, (listing all occupational classifications and related job zones), https://perma.cc/PC6L-PHCC. For the purposes of this Article, occupations in the first three zones are described as “working class,” while occupations in the fourth and fifth zones are described as “managerial or professional.”⁶⁹See generally Cass et al., supra note 65, at 12.

• Job Zone 1: Occupations in Job Zone 1 “may” require a high school diploma or GED certificate, “anywhere from a few days to a few months of training,” and often “involve following instructions and helping others.”⁷⁰O*NET OnLine Help: Job Zones, O*NET OnLine, https://perma.cc/C7RE-R63B.
• Job Zone 2: Occupations in Job Zone 2 “usually require a high school diploma,” require “anywhere from a few months to one year of working with experienced employees,” and often involve using “knowledge and skills to help others.”⁷¹Id.
• Job Zone 3: Most occupations in Job Zone 3 “require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate’s degree,” “one or two years of training,” and “usually involve using communication and organizational skills to coordinate, supervise, manage, or train others to accomplish goals.”⁷²Id.
• Job Zone 4: Most Job Zone 4 occupations require a four-year bachelor’s degree, “several years of work-related experience” or training, and “involve coordinating, supervising, managing, or training others.”⁷³Id.
• Job Zone 5: Most Job Zone 5 occupations require graduate school, “[e]xtensive skill, knowledge, and experience,” and “often involve coordinating, training, supervising, or managing the activities of others to accomplish goals.”⁷⁴Id.

 

By matching each litigant’s occupation with an O*NET definition and that definition’s associated job zone, we differentiated between cases in which the litigant’s occupation requires “little” to “medium” preparation (Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3) or “considerable” to “extensive” preparation (Zone 4 and Zone 5).⁷⁵Id. See, e.g., Lorenz v. Wal-Mart Stores, 225 F. App’x 302, 302 (5th Cir. 2007) (“In March 2003, Appellant was hired as a cashier by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.”); Cashiers: 41-2011.00, O*NET OnLine, (noting that cashiers fall within “Job Zone Two”) https://perma.cc/MLD5-F8QL; see also Appendix.

This chart illustrates the findings, and the underlying data supporting our findings can be found in the Appendix.

This data should not come as a surprise. Those in the working class often have relatively little flexibility in their schedules.⁷⁶See Friedman, supra note 24, at 157–60. Moreover, as one study on reasonable accommodations noted, “[c]lerical, service, and blue-collar workers are easier and cheaper to replace than to accommodate” compared to managerial and professional workers.⁷⁷Sharon L. Harlan & Pamela M. Robert, The Social Construction of Disability in Organizations: Why Employers Resist Reasonable Accommodations, 25 Work Occupations 397, 422 (1998). When an employer can refuse to accommodate based on anything more than a de minimis cost, there is little reason to accommodate—rather than replace—the religious employee.

In sum, as our amicus brief in Groff explained, the overwhelming majority of Title VII accommodation cases involve working-class Americans.⁷⁸See generally Brief of Amicus Curiae The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law in Support of Petitioner, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (S. Ct. argued Apr. 18, 2023). Working-class employees are simply “easier and cheaper to replace than to accommodate,”⁷⁹Harlan & Robert, supra note 77, at 422. especially under Hardison.

Another amicus in Groff looked at a similar issue using different data. The brief of the Muslim Public Affairs Council analyzed 139 religious accommodation cases from a similar timeframe based on occupational categories from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ current population survey.⁸⁰Brief of the Muslim Pub. Affairs Council as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 1a, Groff, No. 22-174, [hereinafter Brief of the Muslim Pub. Affairs Council]; see also Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stat., https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.htm. That survey designates as “professional”⁸¹See Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stat., supra note 80. occupations such as sales managers⁸²See EEOC v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 992 F.3d 656, 656 (7th Cir. 2021); see also Brief of the Muslim Pub. Affairs Council at 2a. and property managers.⁸³See Dixon v. The Hallmark Cos., Inc., 627 F.3d 849, 852 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Brief of the Muslim Pub. Affairs Council at 14a. Even then, litigants in non-professional occupations still outnumbered those in professional occupations by a wide margin. By that brief’s count, 74% of cases represented non-professional occupations while only 26% represented professional occupations.⁸⁴Brief of the Muslim Pub. Affairs Council at 6–7.

B.      Religious Discrimination Hits Members of Minority Faiths in Working-Class Occupations Particularly Hard

Harms to working-class employees, who often have more stringent schedules and uniform requirements, compound when those employees are also members of minority faiths. If religious practices like wearing headcoverings or observing the Sabbath on a Saturday were commonplace, employees would need far fewer accommodations because their religious practices would be “accommodated by default.”⁸⁵See Brief of Amicus Curiae the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists Supporting Petitioner at 29, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22–174 (S. Ct. argued Apr. 18, 2023). Thus, “[b]ecause facially or formally neutral workplace policies by nature reflect the perspective of the cultural majority, they will disproportionately come into conflict with the practices of religious minorities.”⁸⁶Brief Amicus Curiae of Christian Legal Soc’y et al. in Support of Petitioner at 17, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22–174 (S. Ct. argued Apr. 18, 2023). Thus, it is no surprise that minority faiths are overrepresented in religious accommodation claims but underrepresented in wins on appeal.⁸⁷See supra note 58 and accompanying text.

Consider these recurring occupations­: litigants since 2000 included five postal service workers,⁸⁸See Groff v. DeJoy, 35 F.4th 162, 164–65 (3d Cir. 2022); Graff v. Henderson, 30 F. App’x 809, 809–10 (10th Cir. 2002); Harrell v. Donahue, 638 F.3d 975, 977 (8th Cir. 2011); Rose v. Potter, 90 F. App’x 951, 952 (7th Cir. 2004); Thomas v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 225 F.3d 1149, 1149 (10th Cir. 2000). nine bus or truck drivers,⁸⁹See Antoine v. First Student, Inc., 713 F.3d 824, 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2013); Fouche v. NJ Transit, 470 F. App’x 96, 96 (3d Cir. 2012); Cameau v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., No. 11–cv–04036, 2014 WL 11379548, at *1–2 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 20, 2014); EEOC v. Triangle Catering, LLC, No. 15–CV–00016, 2017 WL 818261, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2017); Maroko v. Werner Enters., Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 993, 995 (D. Minn. 2011); EEOC v. Thompson Contracting, Grading, Paving, & Utils., Inc., 499 F. App’x 275, 277 (4th Cir. 2012); Virts v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del., 285 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2002); Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 06–CV–1535, 2008 WL 2627675, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2008); Weber v. Roadway Express, Inc., 199 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2000). nine retail workers,⁹⁰See Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 265 F. Supp. 3d 391, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); EEOC v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 992 F.3d 656, 657–58 (7th Cir. 2021); EEOC v. Kroger Ltd. P’ship I, 608 F. Supp. 3d 757, 761 (E.D. Ark. 2022); Adams v. Retail Ventures, Inc., 325 F. App’x 440, 441 (7th Cir. 2009); Gay v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., No. 05cv237, 2007 WL 1599750, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 4, 2007); Sánchez-Rodríguez v. AT&T Mobility P.R., Inc., 673 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2012); U.S. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 949, 952–54, 956 (N.D. Cal. 2013); EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 731 F.3d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 2013); EEOC v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 112, 113 (D.D.C. 2013). and thirteen police or correctional officers.⁹¹See EEOC v. Geo Grp., Inc., 616 F.3d 265, 269–70 (3d Cir. 2010); Hebrew v. Collier, No. H–21–2929, 2022 WL 4866719, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2022); Jamil v. Sessions, No. 14–CV–2355, 2017 WL 913601, at *1–2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017); Ashley v. Chafin, No. 07–cv–177, 2009 WL 3074732, at *1, *3 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 23, 2009); Fazlovic v. Maricopa Cnty., No. CV 09–1151, 2012 WL 12960870, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2012); Finnie v. Lee Cnty., 907 F. Supp. 2d 750, 756, 758 (N.D. Miss. 2012); Leonce v. Callahan, No. 03–CV–110, 2008 WL 58892, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2008); Daniels v. City of Arlington, 246 F.3d 500, 501 (5th Cir. 2001); Perkins v. Town of Princeville, 216 F. App’x 293, 293 (4th Cir. 2007); Wallace v. City of Philadelphia, No. 06–4236, 2010 WL 1730850, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2010); Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 258 (3d Cir. 2009); Litzman v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, No. 12 Civ. 4681, 2013 WL 6049066, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2013); Endres v. Ind. State Police, 334 F.3d 618, 621 (7th Cir. 2003). Such cases are typical—these employees often require accommodations due to the restrictive nature of their jobs.⁹²See, e.g., Groff, 35 F.4th at 175 (reasoning that merely “impos[ing] on . . . coworkers” by accommodating a mail carrier’s Sabbath is “more than a de minimis cost”); Vaynshelboym v. COMHAR, Inc., No. CV 20–2690, 2021 WL 4399651, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2021) (reasoning that requiring other employees to cover for an employee’s Sabbath, which often resulted in overtime pay, imposed more than a de minimis cost). But the uncommon nature of minority faith practices often makes getting those accommodations difficult.

For example, Sabbatarian litigants must overcome “neutral” work schedules to receive accommodations.⁹³See supra note 44 and accompanying text. Under Hardison, that is a steep climb. Courts hold tight to Hardison’s statement that the EEOC “did not purport to change the view expressed in its 1966 guidelines that work schedules generally applicable to all employees may not be unreasonable, even if they do not ‘operate with uniformity . . . upon the religious observances of [all] employees.’”⁹⁴Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 72–73 n.7 (1977) (alteration in original).

In one case, a Seventh-day Adventist lost a job offer as an assistant manager because his religious beliefs required him to observe the Sabbath on Saturday.⁹⁵See Walmart Stores E., 992 F.3d at 658. The Seventh Circuit held that the accommodation would have imposed more than a de minimis cost “when vacations, illnesses, and vacancies reduced the number of other assistant managers available.”⁹⁶Id. at 660. Similarly, a cashier was denied a scheduling accommodation for his Sabbath because it would have affected the shift preferences of his secular coworkers.⁹⁷Adams v. Retail Ventures, Inc., 325 F. App’x 440, 443 (7th Cir. 2009). And a store department greeter was denied an accommodation because her absence on Sunday might increase duties for or affect the schedules of other employees.⁹⁸George v. Home Depot, Inc., 51 F. App’x 482, at *4 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“The Fifth Circuit has further noted that an employer need not actually incur costs before claiming that an accommodation would result in costs that are more than de minimus.”). Even where an employer would incur no extra costs to accommodate an employee’s Sabbath, a court has held that the resulting “hard feelings” of other employees would impose more than a de minimis cost.⁹⁹Leonce v. Callahan, No. 03–CV–110, 2008 WL 58892, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2008).

Application of Hardison also results in working-class employees of various faiths being denied accommodations for uniform and grooming policies. In one case, a Muslim police officer was suspended for wearing a headcovering in accordance with her religious beliefs.¹⁰⁰Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 258 (3d Cir. 2009). The City argued that police department policies “encourage[] the subordination of personal preferences in favor of the overall policing mission,” and the Third Circuit agreed.¹⁰¹Id. at 261, 264. In other words, religious obligations may fare no better than “personal preferences” when those obligations must yield to even the slightest “burdens” on the employer.

Another police department refused to grant an Orthodox Jewish officer a religious accommodation from its no-beard policy, which was meant to enable officers to use respirators.¹⁰²Litzman v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t, No. 12 Civ. 4681(HB), 2013 WL 6049066, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2013). While only 69.3% of the police department’s officers were trained for and issued respirators, the court held that accommodating the officer’s religious practice would impose more than a de minimis cost, because it would “decreas[e] the efficiency of the Department to respond to emergencies.”¹⁰³Id. at *2, *6; see also id. (“An employer may show that the cost of accommodation is more than minimal by showing either ‘lost efficiency in other jobs or higher wages.’” (quoting Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977))).

Even “the mere possibility of an adverse impact on co-workers” can be enough to impose more than a de minimis cost on a business.¹⁰⁴Weber v. Roadway Express, Inc., 199 F.3d 270, 274 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Hardison, 432 U.S. at 81). Indeed, Hardison stated as much: “It would be anomalous to conclude that by ‘reasonable accommodation’ Congress meant that an employer must deny the shift and job preference of some employees . . . .”¹⁰⁵Hardison, 432 U.S. at 81.

Working-class Americans need Title VII’s protection more than those in professional occupations. Those in working-class occupations are often easier to replace than to accommodate and their schedules are often less flexible and more demanding.¹⁰⁶See Harlan & Robert, supra note 77, at 422. It’s not surprising, then, that more than 80% of religious accommodation litigants come from the working class.

III.      Stare Decisis Does Not Counsel the Supreme Court to Preserve Hardison

As religious employees challenge Hardison’s atextual gloss on “undue hardship,” employers recite a unified defense: the Supreme Court should leave any changes to Congress.¹⁰⁷See, e.g., Brief of Amicus Curiae The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law in Support of Petitioner at 17–18, Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (S. Ct. argued Apr. 18, 2023); Brief in Opposition at 17–18, Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2463 (2021) (No. 19-1461); Brief in Opposition at 27–28, Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 141 S. Ct. 1227 (2021) (No. 19-1388); Brief in Opposition at 28–29, Patterson v. Walgreen Co., 140 S. Ct. 685 (2020) (No. 18-349). True, stare decisis is generally stronger when reconsidering statutory interpretations.¹⁰⁸Kimble v. Marvel Ent., LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 456 (2015). But that stronger stare decisis is not absolute. “[E]nacting new legislation is difficult—and far more difficult than the Court’s cases sometimes seem to assume.”¹⁰⁹Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1413 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part).

It is especially difficult to enact new legislation when the subject of the legislation is religious liberty. Much has changed since the Senate approved RFRA by a vote of 97 to 3 and that same law received “such broad support it was adopted on a voice vote in the House.”¹¹⁰Remarks on Signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 2 Pub. Papers 2000, 2000 (Nov. 16, 1993). Today, some view “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” as “code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, [and] sexism.”¹¹¹U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties 29 (2016), https://perma.cc/D4B7-ZSWU. And diverse Americans who want merely to consecrate the Sabbath or adorn themselves with an outward manifestation of their faith are caught in the crossfire.

For almost two decades after RFRA’s passage, members of Congress have introduced legislation to reverse Hardison.¹¹²E.g., S. 3686, 112th Cong. (2012); H.R. 1431, 110th Cong. (2007); S. 893, 108th Cong. (2003). Some of these attempts have garnered impressive bipartisan rosters of cosponsors.¹¹³See, e.g., H.R.1431 – Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2007 – Cosponsors, Congress.gov, https://perma.cc/R3FX-H8T9; S. 893 – Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2003 – Cosponsors, Congress.gov, https://perma.cc/H28Y-3SHV. Nevertheless, these bills have failed to gain much traction, struggling to “find[ ] room in a crowded legislative docket.”¹¹⁴See Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1413 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part). Any such proposal seems destined to fail in our present political climate, which may explain why no similar bill has been filed in over a decade.¹¹⁵See S. 3686; H.R. 1431; S. 893. Continued reliance on Congress to correct Hardison’s error will almost certainly leave countless working-class, minority faith Americans as collateral damage in the religious liberty culture- wars.

This suffering is unnecessary. Congress has already acted to protect the rights of such religious employees. Given the plain text of Title VII, employers cannot claim a legitimate reliance interest in the right to discriminate against religious employees and prospective employees. “[S]tare decisis isn’t supposed to be the art of methodically ignoring what everyone knows to be true.”¹¹⁶Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1405.

Hardison is wrong. And it wrongly breaks a fundamental American promise and places impossible burdens on religious minorities.

Conclusion

No American should face the “cruel choice of surrendering their religion or their job.”¹¹⁷Hardison, 432 U.S. at 87 (Marshall, J., dissenting); see also Abramson v. William Paterson Coll., 260 F.3d 265, 290 (3d Cir. 2001) (Alito, J., concurring). For example, consider the plight of Jewish immigrants to America. Pressure for Sabbath work has long undermined Jewish workers’ ability to live out their faith:

A heartrending Yiddish prayer (techinah) written in America for women to recite privately when they lit their Sabbath candles, and printed in a widely distributed women’s prayer book . . . laments that in “this diaspora land” where the “burden of making a living is so great,” resting on Sabbath and holidays had become impossible, and it pleads for divine compassion. “Grant a bountiful living to all Jewish children,” it entreats, “that they should not . . . have to desecrate your holy day.”¹¹⁸Sarna, supra note 1, at 164 (quoting Shas Tehinah Hadashah 38–41 (Hebrew Publ’g Co. 1916)).

Working families of many faiths share in that lament and join in that prayer. The time has come for the Court to restore the protection plainly required by the text of Title VII before further harm is done to religious, working-class American.

 

APPENDIX

Breakdown by Employee’s Occupation and O*NET Job Zone in Religious Accommodation Cases Decided on Summary Judgment Motions Relating to “Undue Hardship” from 2000 to 2023

Case	Religious affiliation	Occupation	Job Zone	O*NET Code	O*NET Description
EEOC v. 704 HTL Operating, LLC1199 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1222, 1224 (D.N.M. 2013).	Muslim (minority)	“housekeeping” staff	1	37-2012.00	Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Logan v. Organic Harvest, LLC120. 18-cv-00362, 2020 WL 1547985, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 1, 2020).	Unspecified Sabbatarian	“hot bar cook”	1	35-2021.00	Food Preparation Workers
Winchester v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.121. 15-CV-00025, 2016 WL 2993221, at *1–2 (W.D. Ky. May 23, 2016), vacated, No. 16-5890, 2017 WL 11489879 (6th Cir. 2017).	Salvation Army (Christian)	“Rotisserie Associate”	1	35-2021.00	Food Preparation Workers
Abdelwahab v. Jackson State Univ.122. 09CV41TS, 2010 WL 384416, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 27, 2010).	Muslim (minority)	“residence hall receptionist”	2	43-4171.00	Receptionists and Information Clerks
Adams v. Retail Ventures, Inc.1235 F. App’x 440, 441 (7th Cir. 2009).	Unspecified Christian	“door greeter”	2	41-2031.00	Retail Salespersons
Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC1241 F.3d 444, 452, 455 (7th Cir. 2013).	African Religions	“material handler” and “packer/palletizer”	2	53-7064.00	Packers and Packagers, Hand
Antoine v. First Student, Inc.1253 F.3d 824, 827 (5th Cir. 2013).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“bus driver”	2	53-3051.00	Bus Drivers, School
Ashley v. Chafin126. 07–cv–177, 2009 WL 3074732, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 23, 2009).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“detention officer”	2	33-3012.00	Correctional Officers and Jailers
Batson v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co.127. RDB–11–01690, 2012 WL 4479970, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 25, 2012).	Hebrew Israelite (minority)	“senior teller” and “relationship banker”	2	43-3071.00	Tellers
Bethea v. Access Bank128. 17CV135, 2018 WL 3009114, at *1, *3 (D. Neb. June 15, 2018).	Jewish (minority)	“teller”	2	43-3071.00	Tellers
Bolden v. Caravan Facilities Mgmt., LLC1292 F. Supp. 3d 785, 787 (N.D. Ind. 2015).	Baptist	“janitor”	2	37-2011.00	Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Burdette v. Fed. Exp. Corp.1307 F. App’x 628, 629 (6th Cir. 2010).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“operations manager”	2	53-1041.00	Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors
Cameau v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.131-CV-4036, 2013 WL 11319425, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 18, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 11-CV-4036, 2014 WL 11379548 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 20, 2014).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“bus operator”	2	53-3052.00	Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity
Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.1325 F. Supp. 3d 391, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).	Pentecostal	“Asset Protection Manager”	2	33-9099.02	Retail Loss Prevention Specialists
Cherry v. Sunoco, Inc.133. 07-CV-223, 2009 WL 2518221, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2009).	Hebrew Israelite (minority)	“catalyst cracking unit” employee	2	51-8093.00	Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery Operators, and Gaugers
Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp.1340 F.3d 126, 129 (1st Cir. 2004).	Idiosyncratic Religions	“cashier”	2	41-2011.00	Cashiers
Creusere v. Bd. of Educ.135 F. App’x 813, 814 (6th Cir. 2003).	Unspecified Sabbatarian	“carpenter”	2	47-2031.00	Carpenters
Creusere v. James Hunt Constr.136 F. App’x 709, 710 (6th Cir. 2003).	Unspecified Sabbatarian	“carpenter”	2	47-2031.00	Carpenters
Dale v. TWC Admin. LLC137. 14-CV-169-FL, 2016 WL 11430762, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 686 F. App’x 240, 241 (4th Cir. 2017).	Unspecified	“sales agent”	2	41-3091.00	Sales Representatives of Services, Except Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and Travel
Daniel v. Kroger Ltd. P’ship I138. 11cv245–DWD, 2011 WL 5119372, at *1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2011).	Unspecified Christian	“meat cutter”	2	51-3021.00	Butchers and Meat Cutters
Doughty v. Dep’t of Dev. Servs. STS139. 11 CV 1082 (WWE), 2014 WL 10897005, at *1 (D. Conn. June 11, 2014, aff’d, 607 F. App’x 97, 98 (2d Cir. 2015).	Unspecified	“Cook Attendant”	2	31-1122.00	Personal Care Aides
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.1401 F.3d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 2013).	Muslim (minority)	“sales-floor employee”	2	41-2031.00	Retail Salespersons
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.1416 F. Supp. 2d 949, 953–54 (N.D. Cal. 2013).	Muslim (minority)	“sales floor” associate	2	41-2031.00	Retail Salespersons
EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC1422 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1008 (D. Ariz. 2006).	Muslim (minority)	Car “rental agent”	2	41-2021.00	Counter and Rental Clerks
EEOC v. Aldi, Inc.143. 06-01210, 2008 WL 5429624, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2008).	Unspecified Christian	“cashier”	2	41-2011.00	Cashiers
EEOC v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.144 F. Supp. 2d 913, 916–17 (C.D. Ill. 2000).	Unspecified Christian	“tire builder”	2	51-9197.00	Tire Builders
EEOC v. Consol. Energy, Inc.1450 F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 2017).	Evangelical Christian	“coal miner”	2	47-5044.00	Loading and Moving Machine Operators, Underground Mining
EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC146. 10–cv–02103–PAB–KLM, 2013 WL 3302429, at *1 (D. Colo. July 1, 2013).	Muslim (minority)	“meat packing plant” employees	2	51-3023.00	Slaughterers and Meat Packers
EEOC v. Jetstream Ground Servs., Inc.1474 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1306, 1311, 1313 (D. Colo. 2015).	Muslim (minority)	“cabin cleaners”	2	53-7061.00	Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment
EEOC v. Kroger Ltd. P’ship I1488 F. Supp. 3d 757, 761 (E.D. Ark. 2022).	Unspecified Christian	“associates”	2	41-2031.00	Retail Salespersons
EEOC v. Oak-Rite Mfg. Corp.149. IP99–1962–C–H/G, 2001 WL 1168156, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 27, 2001).	Unspecified Christian	“press operator”	2	51-4031.00	Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic
EEOC v. Papin Enters, Inc.150. 07-cv-1548-Orl-28,2009 WL 961108, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2009).	Idiosyncratic Religions	“assistant manager”	2	35-1012.00	First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers
EEOC v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.151. C04–1291JLR, 2005 WL 2090677, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2005).	African Religions (minority)	“server”	2	35-3031.00	Waiters and Waitresses
EEOC v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc.1527 F. Supp. 2d 112, 114 (D. D.C. 2013).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“Store Manager”	2	41-1011.00	First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
EEOC v. Robert Bosch Corp.1539 F. App’x 942, 943 (6th Cir. 2006).	Old Path Church of God	“foundry casting” employee	2	51-4052.00	Pourers and Casters, Metal
EEOC v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P.1540 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 2008).	Jehovah’s Witness (minority)	“customer service technicians”	2	49-9052.00	Telecommunications Line Installers and Repairers
EEOC v. Tex. Hydraulics, Inc.1553 F. Supp. 2d 904, 907 (E.D. Tenn. 2008).	Unspecified Sabbatarian	“saws department” employee	2	51-4031.00	Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic
EEOC v. Thompson Contracting, Grading, Paving, & Util.1569 F. App’x 275, 277 (4th Cir. 2012).	Hebrew Israelite (minority)	“dump truck driver”	2	53-3032.00	Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
EEOC v. Triangle Catering, LLC157. 15-CV-00016, 2017 WL 818261, at *1, *2 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2017).	Rastafarian (minority)	“delivery driver”	2	53-3031.00	Driver/Sales Workers
EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P.1582 F.3d 656, 657 (7th Cir. 2021).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“assistant manager”	2	41-1011.00	First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
Farah v. A-1 Careers159. 12–2692, 2013 WL 6095118, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 20, 2013).	Muslim (minority)	“Centrinex” (call center) employee	2	43-2021.00	Telephone Operators
Fazlovic v. Maricopa Cty.160. CV 09-1151, 2012 WL 12960870, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2012).	Muslim (minority)	“detention officer”	2	33-3012.00	Correctional Officers and Jailers
Finnie v. Lee Cnty., Miss.1617 F. Supp. 2d 750, 757 (N.D. Miss. 2012).	Pentecostal	“detention officer”	2	33-3012.00	Correctional Officers and Jailers
Fouche v. NJ Transit1620 F. App’x 96, 96 (3d Cir. 2012).	Unspecified Christian	“bus driver”	2	53-3052.00	Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity
Gay v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc.163. 05cv237, 2007 WL 1599750, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 4, 2007).	Unspecified Christian	“installed sales coordinator”	2	41-1011.00	First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
George v. Home Depot Inc.164 F. App’x 482, 2002 WL 31319124, at *1 (5th Cir. 2002).	Catholic	“cashier” and “greeter”	2	41-2011.00	Cashiers
Groff v. Dejoy165. 19-1879, 2021 WL 1264030, at *1 (E.D. Penn. April 6, 2021) aff’d, 35 F.4th 162, 164, 176 (3d Cir. 2022).	Evangelical Christian	“United States Postal Service” employee	2	43-5052.00	Postal Service Mail Carriers
Graff v. Henderson166 F. App’x 809, 809 (10th Cir. 2002).	Worldwide Church of God	“United States Postal Service” employee	2	43-5051.00	Postal Service Clerks
Harrell v. Donahue1678 F.3d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 2011).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“United States Postal Service” employee	2	43-5052.00	Postal Service Mail Carriers
Hebrew v. Collier168. H-21-2929, 2022 WL 4866719, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2022).	Unspecified	“Correctional Officer”	2	33-3012.00	Correctional Officers and Jailers
Hill v. Cook Cty.169. 05 C 588, 2007 WL 844556, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2007).	Jewish (minority)	“patient transporter”	2	31-1132.00	Orderlies
Hussaini v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA) Inc.1709 F. Supp. 3d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2019).	Muslim (minority)	“security guard”	2	33-9032.00	Security Guards
Hussein v. Hotel Emps. & Rest. Union, Local 61718 F. Supp. 2d 360, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).	Muslim (minority)	“roll call waiter”	2	35-3031.00	Waiters and Waitresses
Hussein v. The Waldorf-Astoria1724 F. Supp. 2d 591, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).	Muslim (minority)	“banquet waiter”	2	35-3031.00	Waiters and Waitresses
Jacobs v. Scotland Mfg., Inc.173. 10CV814, 2012 WL 2366446, at *1 (M.D.N.C. June 21, 2012).	Unspecified	“Lead Hand”	2	51-4031.00	Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic
Jamil v. Sessions174. 14-CV-2355, 2017 WL 913601, at *1–2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017).	Jewish (minority)	“correctional officer”	2	33-3012.00	Correctional Officers and Jailers
Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.175. 06-CV-1535, 2008 WL 2627675, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2008).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“package car driver”	2	53-3033.00	Light Truck Drivers
Kilpatrick v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Ala., LLC1761 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1213 (M.D. Ala. 2012).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“glass repair” employee	2	49-3022.00	Automotive Glass Installers and Repairers
King v. Borgess Lee Mem’l Hosp.177. 13-CV-397, 2015 WL 852324, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2015).	Muslim (minority)	“secretary”	2	43-6013.00	Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants
Leonce v. Callahan178. 03-CV-110, 2008 WL 58892, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2008).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“detention officer”	2	33-3012.00	Correctional Officers and Jailers
Lorenz v. Wal-Mart Stores1795 F. App’x 302, 302 (5th Cir. 2007).	Muslim (minority)	“cashier”	2	41-2011.00	Cashiers
Maroko v. Werner Enters., Inc.1808 F. Supp. 2d 993, 995 (D. Minn. 2011).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“delivery-truck driver”	2	53-3032.00	Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
McIntyre-Handy  v. W. Telemarketing Corp.181 F. Supp. 2d 718, 722 (E.D. Va. 2000), aff’d, 238 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2000).	Atheist (minority)	“telemarketing representative”	2	41-9041.00	Telemarketers
Miller v. Port Auth. of N. Y. & N. J.1828 F. App’x 886, 886, 887 (3d Cir. 2019).	Jewish (minority)	“utility systems maintainer”	2	47-2073.00	Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators
Mohamed v. 1st Class Staffing, LLC1836 F. Supp. 3d 884, 888 (S.D. Ohio 2017).	Muslim (minority)	“line associates” at packaging facility	2	53-7064.00	Packers and Packagers, Hand
Nichols v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp.1842 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1111 (N.D. Ill. 2016).	Muslim (minority)	“Highway Maintainer”	2	47-4051.00	Highway Maintenance Workers
Prach v. Hollywood Supermarket, Inc.185. 09–13756, 2010 WL 3419461, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2010).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“produce clerk, register clerk,” and “service desk clerk”	2	41-2021.00	Counter and Rental Clerks
Privler v. CSX Transp. Inc.186. 18-cv-1020, 2021 WL 3603334, at *1–*4, *7 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2021).	Jewish (minority)	“utility worker” for locomotives	2	49-3043.00	Rail Car Repairers
Rice v. U.S.F. Holland, Inc.1870 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1303, 1304, 1308 (N.D. Ga. 2005).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“driver/dockman position”	2	53-3032.00	Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
Rivera v. Choice Courier Sys., Inc.188. 01 Civ.2096, 2004 WL 1444852, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2004).	Evangelical Christian	“courier”	2	43-5021.00	Couriers and Messengers
Robinson v. Children’s Hosp. Bos.189. 14-10263, 2016 WL 1337255, at *2–3 (D. Mass. Apr. 5, 2016).	Muslim (minority)	“administrative associate”	2	43-6013.00	Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants
Rose v. Potter190 F. App’x 951, 952–53 (7th Cir. 2004).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“United States Postal Service” employee	2	43-5052.00	Postal Service Mail Carriers
Ross v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp.191. 11-CV-02603, 2012 WL 5975086, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2012).	Unspecified Christian	“Administrative Assistant”	2	43-6014.00	Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive
Rumfola v. Total Petrochemical USA, Inc.192. 10-CV-460, 2012 WL 860405, at *1 (M.D. La. Mar. 13, 2012).	Unspecified Sabbatarian	“Control Specialist”	2	51-8091.00	Chemical Plant and System Operators
Sanchez-Rodriguez  v. AT & T Mobility P.R., Inc.1933 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2012).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“Retail Sales Consultant”	2	41-2031.00	Retail Salespersons
Shatkin v. Univ. of Tex. at Arlington194. 06–CV–882, 2010 WL 2730585, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 2010).	Unspecified Christian	“administrative assistants”	2	43-6014.00	Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive
Slater v. Douglas Cty.1953 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1190 (D. Or. 2010); Complaint at 2, Slater, 743 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (Oct. 7, 2007) (No. 09-6274-TC).	Unspecified Christian	“County Clerk’s Office” employee	2	43-4031.00	Court, Municipal, and License Clerks
Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.1966 F. Supp. 3d 667, 671 (E.D. Mich. 2018).	Muslim (minority)	“flight attendant”	2	53-2031.00	Flight Attendants
Stolley v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co.1978 F. App’x 379, 380 (5th Cir. 2007).	United Church of God	“aircraft assembler”	2	51-2011.00	Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging, and Systems Assemblers
Thomas v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers1985 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (10th Cir. 2000).	Pentecostal	“United States Postal Service” employee	2	43-5052.00	Postal Service Mail Carriers
Vaughn v. Waffle House, Inc.1993 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1077 (N.D. Tex. 2003).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“district manager”	2	11-9051.00	Food Service Managers
Virts v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del.2005 F.3d 508, 511–12 (6th Cir. 2002).	“[B]orn again” Christian	“over-the-road truck driver”	2	53-3032.00	Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
Wagner v. Saint Joseph’s/Candler Health Sys., Inc.201. 4.20-cv-284, 2022 WL 905551, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2022).	Jewish (minority)	“Admissions Notification Specialist”	2	43-9041.00	Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks
Weber v. Roadway Express, Inc.2029 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2000).	Jehovah’s Witness (minority)	“truck driver”	2	53-3032.00	Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
EEOC v. Chemsico, Inc.2036 F. Supp. 2d 940, 942, 944 (E.D. Mo. 2002).	Church of God, Sabbatarian	“line worker”	2	51-9199	Production Workers, All Other
Kenner v. Domtar Indus., Inc.204. 04-CV-4021, 2006 WL 522468, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 3, 2006).	Unspecified Christian	“super will sheet operator”205ere were not enough details to attribute a particular O*NET code with a matching job zone.  The job zone was assigned based on language from the case and similar O*NET occupational descriptions.  See Kenner, 2006 WL 522468, at *1 (“At Domtar, Kenner’s job title is super will sheet operator, and Kenner operates machine number 17 along with three other operators.”); O*NET OnLine, Adhesive Bonding Machine Operators and Tenders: 51-9191.00, https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/51-9191.00 (listing as a work activity “[u]sing either control mechanisms or direct physical activity to operate machines or processes”).	2	51-9199	Production Workers, All Other
Mohamed-Sheik v. Golden Foods/Golden Brands LLC206. 303CV737H, 2006 WL 709573, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 16, 2006).	Muslim (minority)	“manufacturing floor” employees207ere were not enough details to attribute a particular O*NET code with a matching job zone.  The job zone was assigned based on the court’s opinion and similar O*NET occupational descriptions.  See Mohamed-Sheik, 2006 WL 709573, at *1 (noting that the employees “began working on the manufacturing floor” at a plant that converted edible oil to shortening); O*NET OnLine, Food Batchmakers: 51-3092.00, https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/51-3092.00 (describing the position as one that “[s]et[s] up and operate[s] equipment that mixes or blends ingredients used in the manufacturing of food products”).	2	51-3099	Food Processing Workers, All Other
Tabura v. Kellogg USA2080 F.3d 544, 546, 547 (10th Cir. 2018).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“packaging” and “processing” employees at food production plant	2	53-7064.00	Packers and Packagers, Hand
Walker v. Alcoa, Inc.209. 06–CV–120, 2008 WL 2356997, at *1, *6 (N.D. Ind. June 9, 2008).	Unspecified Christian	finish metal operator in “Extrusion Department”	2	51-4021.00	Extruding and Drawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic
Aron v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.2104 F. App’x 82, 82–83 (3d Cir. 2006).	Jewish (minority)	“phlebotomist”	3	31-9097.00	Phlebotomists
Barton v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.211. 20-cv-00118, 2022 WL 989100, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2022).	Jehovah’s Witness (minority)	“Information System Specialist”	3	11-3012.00	Administrative Services Managers
Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co.2129 F. Supp. 2d 7, 9 (D. Mass. 2006).	Rastafarian (minority)	“lube technician”	3	49-3023.00	Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics
Dalberiste v. GLE Assocs., Inc.213 App’x 495, 495 (11th Cir. 2020).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“industrial hygiene technician”	3	19-5012.00	Occupational Health and Safety Technicians
Daniels v. City of Arlington2146 F.3d 500, 501 (5th Cir. 2001).	Evangelical Christian	“police officer”	3	33-3051.00	Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Davis v. Fort Bend Cty.2155 F.3d 480, 483, 496, 500 (5th Cir. 2014).	Unspecified Christian	“Desktop Support Supervisor”	3	15-1232.00	Computer User Support Specialists
EEOC v. Dalfort Aerospace216. 00–CV–0666, 2002 WL 255486, at *1, *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2002).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“Aviation Maintenance Technician” trainee	3	49-3011.00	Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians
EEOC v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co.2175 F.3d 307, 309 (4th Cir. 2008).	Living Church of God	“lab technician”	3	19-4031.00	Chemical Technicians
EEOC v. Geo Grp., Inc.2186 F.3d 265, 267–69 (3d Cir. 2010).	Muslim (minority)	“correctional officer,” “chronic infectious disease nurse,” and “intake specialist”	3	29-2061.00	Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
Endres v. Ind. State Police2199 F.3d 922, 924 (7th. Cir. 2003).	Baptist	State Police “Gaming Commission agent”	3	33-3051.00	Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Hommel v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp.220 F. App’x 650, 650 (9th Cir. 2004).	Unspecified	“ski instructor”	3	25-3021.00	Self-Enrichment Teachers
Jean-Pierre v. Naples Cmty. Hosp.2217 F. App’x 822, 824 (11th Cir. 2020).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“clinical technician”	3	29-2012.00	Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians
Jiglov v. Hotel Peabody, G.P.2229 F. Supp. 2d 918, 921–22 (W.D. Tenn. 2010).	Unspecified Christian	“kitchen mechanic”	3	49-9071.00	Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
Litzman v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t223. 12 Civ. 4681, 2013 WL 6049066, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2013).	Jewish (minority)	“Probationary Police Officer”	3	33-3051.00	Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Mathis v. Christian Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.2248 F. Supp. 3d 317, 321 (E.D. Pa. 2016).	Non-religious	“[HVAC] installation mechanic”	3	49-9021.00	Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers
Morris v. Four Star Paving, LLC225. 12–cv–0387, 2013 WL 1681835, at *1–2  M.D. Tenn. Apr. 17, 2013).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“base foreman”	3	47-1011.00	First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers
Nobach v. Woodland Vill. Nursing Ctr., Inc.2269 F.3d 374, 375, 376 (5th Cir. 2015).	Non-religious	“nursing home activities aide”	3	31-1131.00	Nursing Assistants
O’Barr v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.227. 11–CV–177, 2013 WL 2243004, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. May 21, 2013).	Church of God	“mechanic”	3	49-9071.00	Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
Perkins v. Town of Princeville228. 04-CV-168, 2006 WL 4694727, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2006), aff’d, 216 Fed. Appx. 293 (4th Cir. 2007).	Unspecified Christian	“police officer”	3	33-3051.00	Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Rojas v.  GMD Airlines Servs., Inc.2294 F. Supp. 3d 281, 288–89 (D.P.R. 2015).	Pentecostal	“mechanic”	3	49-3011.00	Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians
Small v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water2302 F.3d 821, 823 (6th Cir. 2020).	Jehovah’s Witness (minority)	“electrician” and “service dispatcher”	3	51-8012.00	Power Distributors and Dispatchers
Tagore v. United States2315 F.3d 324, 326 (5th Cir. 2013).	Sikh (minority)	“revenue agent for the IRS”	3	13-2081.00	Tax Examiners and Collectors, and Revenue Agents
Vaynshelboym v. COMHAR, Inc.232. 20-2690, 2021 WL 4399651, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2021).	Jewish (minority)	“licensed practical nurse”	3	29-2061.00	Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
Villareal v. Rocky Knoll Health Care Ctr.233. 21-CV-729, 2022 WL 17092090, at *1, *2 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2022).	Unspecified Christian	“licensed practical nurse”	3	29-2061.00	Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
Wallace v. City of Philadelphia234. 06-4236, 2010 WL 1730850, at *1, *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2010).	Muslim (minority)	“police officer”	3	33-3051.00	Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Webb v. City of Philadelphia2352 F.3d 256, 258 (3d Cir. 2009).	Muslim (minority)	“police officer”	3	33-3051.00	Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Westbrook v. N.C. A&T State Univ.236 F. Supp. 3d 612, 616 (M.D.N.C. 2014).	Jehovah’s Witness (minority)	“parking services officer”	3	33-3051.00	Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Lindsey v. Bridge Rehab, Inc.2379 F. Supp. 3d 1204, 1208 (N.D. Ala. 2019).	Unspecified Christian	“treatment aide”238ere were not enough details to attribute a particular O*NET code with a matching job zone.  The job zone was assigned based on the court’s opinion and similar O*NET occupational descriptions.  See Lindsey, 369 F. Supp. 3d at 1208 (“As a treatment aide, Ms. Lindsey supervised clients’ safety and conducted basic living skills group instruction sessions.”); O*NET OnLine, Occupational Therapy Aides: 31-2012.00, https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/31-2012.00 (listing as a task “[e]ncourag[ing] patients and attend[ing] to their physical needs to facilitate the attainment of therapeutic goals”).	3	21-1099	Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other
Baltgalvis v. Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc.239 F. App’x 172 (4th Cir. 2001); 132 F. Supp. 2d 414, 415 (E.D. Va. 2001).	Unspecified Christian	“Senior Analyst Technician”	4	13-1081.00	Logisticians
Brown v. Hot Springs Nat. Park Hosp. Holdings, LLC240. 12CV00356, 2013 WL 1968483, at *1 (E.D. Ark. May 13, 2013).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“Director of Physician Clinic Operations”	4	11-9111.00	Medical and Health Services Managers
Cassell v. Skywest, Inc.241. 19-cv-00149, 2022 WL 375855, at *1‒2 (D. Utah Feb. 8, 2022).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“pilot”	4	53-2011.00	Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers
Dixon v. Hallmark Cos.2427 F.3d 849, 852‒53 (11th Cir. 2010).	Unspecified Christian	“property manager” and “maintenance technician”	4	11-9141.00	Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers
EEOC v. Healthcare & Ret. Corp. of Am.243. 07–13670, 2009 WL 2488110, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2009); Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 1, Healthcare & Ret. Corp., No. 07–13670, 2009 WL 2488110 (Jan. 2., 2009).	Sikh (minority)	“Nurse Supervisor”	4	11-9111.00	Medical and Health Services Managers
Filinovich v. Claar244. 04 C 7189, 2005 WL 2709284, at *1, *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2005).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“Director of Finance”	4	11-3031.00	Financial Managers
Ford v. City of Dallas245. 05-CV-1676, 2007 WL 2051016, at *1, *3 (N.D. Tex. July 12, 2007).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“Code Compliance Department” employee	4	11-9199.02	Compliance Managers
Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.2461 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2021).	Unspecified Christian	“football coach”	4	27-2022.00	Coaches and Scouts
Lizalek v. Invivo Corp.247. 06-C-1109, 2008 WL 11452043, at *1­–5 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2008), aff’d, 314 F. App’x 881, 881–82 (7th Cir. 2009).	Unspecified	“RF [Radio Frequency] Engineer”	4	17-2072.01	Radio Frequency Identification Device Specialists
O’Brien v. City of Springfield2489 F. Supp. 2d 90, 93–94 (D. Mass. 2003).	Unspecified Christian	“public school teacher”	4	25-2022.00	Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education
Quental v. Conn. Comm’n on Deaf & Hearing Impaired2492 F. Supp. 2d 133, 136–37 (D. Conn. 2000).	Unspecified Christian	“interpreter”	4	27-3091.00	Interpreters and Translators
Shelton v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J.2503 F.3d 220, 222 (3d Cir. 2000).	Pentecostal	“staff nurse”	4	29-1141.00	Registered Nurses
Shepherd v. Gannondale251. 14–cv–8, 2014 WL 7338714, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2014).	Jehovah’s Witness (minority)	“Fiscal Supervisor”	4	11-3031.00	Financial Managers
Zamora v. Gainesville City Sch. Dist.252. 14-CV-00021, 2015 WL 12851549, at *1–2 (N.D. Ga. June 22, 2015).	Jehovah’s Witness (minority)	“Finance Administrative Assistant/Workers Comp Coordinator”	4	11-3111.00	Compensation and Benefits Managers
Berry v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.2537 F.3d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 2006).	Evangelical Christian	“Department of Social Services” welfare transition employee	4	21-1099	Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other
Patterson v. Walgreen Co.2547 F. App’x 581, 583 (11th Cir. 2018).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“training instructor”	4	13-1151.00	Training and Development Specialists
Andrews v. Va. Union Univ.255. 07cv447, 2008 WL 2096964, at *1, *3, *10 (E.D. Va. May 16, 2008).	Unspecified Christian	“Chair of the Department of Social Work”	5	11-9033.00	Education Administrators, Postsecondary
Bruff v. N. Miss. Health Servs.2564 F.3d 495, 497–98 (5th Cir. 2001).	Unspecified Christian	“Employee Assistance Program” counselor	5	21-1012.00	Educational, Guidance, and Career Counselors and Advisors
Moore v. Metro. Human Serv. Dist.25710 WL 1462224, at *1–2 (E.D. La. Apr. 8, 2010).	Unspecified Christian	“social worker”	5	21-1023.00	Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers
Noesen v. Med. Staffing Network, Inc.2582 F. App’x 581, 583 (7th Cir. 2007).	Catholic	“pharmacist”	5	29-1051.00	Pharmacists
Crider v. Univ. of Tenn.2592 F. App’x 609, 610 (6th Cir. 2012).	Seventh-day Adventist (minority)	“Programs Abroad Coordinator”	5	25-9099	Educational Instruction and Library Workers, All Other
Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.2608 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 2004).	Unspecified Christian	“office” employee261ere were not enough details to attribute a particular O*NET code or assign a job zone.	N/A	N/A	N/A
Seaworth v. Pearson2623 F.3d 1056, 1057 (8th Cir. 2000).	Unspecified Christian	Unclear263ere were not enough details to attribute a particular O*NET code or assign a job zone.	N/A	N/A	N/A