Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.

Background

A store manager who worked for a New England retail chain stopped working on Sundays because he observed Sunday as his Sabbath and invoked a Connecticut law that guaranteed anyone the right not to work on a day they called their Sabbath. He rejected offers to move to other positions, was moved to a lower clerical job, resigned, and filed a grievance. A state labor board and a lower state court found for him; the Connecticut Supreme Court held the statute lacked a clear secular purpose and violated the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court then agreed to review the question.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a law that gives every employee an absolute, unconditional right to refuse work on a chosen Sabbath improperly advances religion. The Court applied the familiar test that a law must have a secular purpose, must not primarily advance religion, and must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. The Justices concluded the statute singled out religious Sabbath observers for absolute protection, forced employers and coworkers to bear the burdens without any balancing or exceptions, and therefore had the primary effect of advancing religion.

Real world impact

Because the Court struck down the law, employers cannot be required by that statute to rearrange work schedules or sacrifice other employees’ rights simply because one worker unilaterally designates a Sabbath. The decision protects employers and nonobservant coworkers from absolute, state-backed religious accommodations and preserves the requirement that religious accommodations be reasonable and balanced.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice Marshall, agreed with the judgment and emphasized that the law sends a public message of endorsement by protecting only Sabbath observers; she contrasted the absolute rule with Title VII’s requirement of reasonable accommodation. Justice Rehnquist dissented.