8th Circuit: Title VII Failure To Accommodate Does Not Equal Retaliation

In EEOC v. North Memorial Health Care, (8th Cir., Nov. 13, 2018), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, interpreted Title VII's unlawful retaliation provision. At issue is the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) that makes it illegal to discriminate against an employee or applicant for employment because the person "has opposed" an employer's discriminatory practices. In the case, an employment offer to a Seventh Day Adventist registered nurse was withdrawn because she was unable to work Friday night shifts and an accommodation was not feasible.  The majority held that merely requesting religious accommodation is not necessarily an expression of opposition to a denial of the accommodation.  Judge Grasz dissenting explained the opposing views:

I do share the Court’s apparent concern that Title VII not be read so that meritless discrimination claims based on a failure to accommodate may simply be repackaged and resurrected as retaliation claims. In my view, however, it is the causation element that properly does the work of weeding out such claims, not the opposition requirement. Where an employer, after denying an accommodation request that it is not legally obligated to grant, refuses to hire an applicant because the applicant cannot or will not perform the job without accommodation, the employer can show the legitimacy of the action.... Unlike such repackaged claims, the claim here should survive because there is evidence of retaliation, namely the evidence that Sure-Ondara told North Memorial she would work the job even without the accommodation and would show up for work if she could not find a replacement. Despite her willingness to work without accommodation, North Memorial withdrew its job offer, making it reasonable for a fact-finder to infer that it did so because she had requested an accommodation.