Title VII Religious Accommodation and Wal-Mart Lawsuit
This paper analyzes a landmark religious discrimination case involving a Christian theology student who was forced to quit his Wal-Mart position after being repeatedly scheduled to work on Sundays, his Sabbath Day. Drawing on a 1995 Wall Street Journal article and relevant employment law, the paper examines how the resulting lawsuit prompted Wal-Mart to adopt formal religious accommodation policies under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It also surveys the broader national trend of rising religious discrimination charges during the early 1990s and discusses employer obligations to reasonably accommodate employees' sincere religious beliefs without claiming undue hardship.
- Introduction: Title VII and Religious Discrimination: Overview of Title VII and its religious discrimination provisions
- The Scott Hamby Case Against Wal-Mart: Theology student sues Wal-Mart over Sunday scheduling
- Settlement Terms and Policy Changes: Wal-Mart settles and adopts accommodation training program
- Rising Religious Discrimination Lawsuits: National rise in religious discrimination charges in the 1990s
- Employer Challenges and the Path Forward: Lack of employer guidelines fuels continued legal disputes
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its legal analysis in a concrete, real-world case, making abstract statutory requirements tangible and easy to follow.
- It moves logically from the specific (one employee's lawsuit) to the general (a national trend in religious discrimination charges), giving the argument appropriate scope.
- Citations are consistently applied, and the paper accurately characterizes both statutory language and employer obligations without overreaching.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a case-study approach to illuminate a legal principle. By grounding the discussion of Title VII's religious accommodation requirements in the Scott Hamby v. Wal-Mart dispute, the author shows how abstract statutory language translates into concrete employer obligations, settlement terms, and policy reform — a technique common in business law and human resource management writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying the governing statute and the triggering news article, then narrows to the facts of the Hamby case, details the settlement and its policy implications, broadens to national litigation trends, and closes by identifying the structural challenge employers face when no formal accommodation guidelines exist. Each paragraph advances the argument in a clear, linear sequence.
Introduction: Title VII and Religious Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin — a provision that lies at the heart of a 1995 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Legal Beat: Workers' Religious Beliefs May Get New Attention." It is the prohibition against religious discrimination that the article claims Wal-Mart violated when the company forced an employee to quit as a result of being scheduled to work on Sunday, his Sabbath Day. Because of a lawsuit filed by this employee, Wal-Mart incorporated a new religious accommodation policy that takes into account employees' religious beliefs when scheduling work shifts. As a result of the thousands of similar lawsuits filed across the United States, other employers have also begun incorporating new religious accommodation policies.
The Scott Hamby Case Against Wal-Mart
It was a Christian theology student named Scott Hamby who, after being purposefully scheduled to work several Sundays in a row, was forced to quit his job at Wal-Mart on the basis of his religious beliefs. In 1993, he filed suit in Federal Court in Springfield, Missouri, claiming that by continually scheduling him to work on what he considered to be the Sabbath, Wal-Mart managers had violated his federal civil rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This federal law requires that employers reasonably accommodate religious practices that do not present an undue hardship on the employer ("Chapter 3," p. 72). This may include accommodating certain dress practices, work duties, or — as in the case of Mr. Hamby — time off to observe religious holy days. In order to make an accommodation for someone like Mr. Hamby, employers "may have to adjust schedules so that employees do not have to work on days when their religion forbids it" ("Chapter 3," p. 72).
Settlement Terms and Policy Changes
The lawsuit brought by Scott Hamby claimed that Wal-Mart did not attempt to make any reasonable accommodation for his religious beliefs. While the company did not admit to any wrongdoing, Wal-Mart settled the suit just days before it was scheduled to go to court. In the settlement, Wal-Mart — in addition to paying Mr. Hamby an undisclosed sum of money — agreed to instruct their managers "on employees' rights to have their religious beliefs 'reasonably accommodated'" (Jacobs, 1995, p. 2). The company also agreed to hire 30 to 40 specialists to train managers on the subject of religious accommodation in the workplace.
References
"Chapter 3: Providing Equal Employment Opportunity and a Safe Workplace." The Human Resource Environment. McGraw Hill.
Jacobs, Margaret A. (22 August 1995). "Legal Beat: Workers' religious beliefs may get new attention." Wall Street Journal. Print.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.