In Lawson v. Washington, 2002 WL 1485121, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether a cadet was constructively discharged from the Washington State Patrol (WSP) in violation of his civil rights.
Facts
When Lawson began training at the WSP Academy, cadets were required to assemble twice daily for flag formations. Deviations from the rules resulted in discipline up to and including discharge. After participating fully for two days, Lawson informed his Trooper Advisor Counselor (TAC) that he had decided to resign because of a conflict between his religious beliefs and employment requirements. He explained that his beliefs required him to refrain from saluting the flag or taking the oath of allegiance and asked if he could do something besides saluting, such as standing respectfully or performing duties elsewhere. The TAC did not know of anything that could be done and asked if Lawson still wished to resign. Lawson confirmed his decision.
The next day, Lawson informed Lieutenant Irwin, acting commander, of the conflict and his decision to resign. Irwin suggested no accommodations and gave Lawson an already prepared resignation letter, stating that Lawson was resigning for personal reasons. Lawson signed the letter and, in an exit questionnaire, stated he was resigning because of his religious beliefs and because his time away was hard on his family. He suggested the WSP make allowances for religious differences.
Following his resignation, Lawson contacted Captain Porter, commander of Human Resources, to request information on WSP’s policy on religious accommodations. Porter stated that WSP would make no accommodations and that if he wanted to serve as a trooper Lawson would have to salute the flag and take the oath. Lawson filed a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission and sued in federal court, claiming his civil rights were violated by the WSP’s failure to accommodate his religious beliefs. The court granted summary judgment in WSP’s favor and Lawson appealed.
Court of Appeal’s Decision
Federal law makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee because of the employee’s religion. The appellate court concluded, however, that Lawson did not make his initial case. Only when the plaintiff establishes the elements of its initial case does the employer have to show it made a good faith effort to accommodate the employee’s religious practices or that doing so would cause undue hardship. A plaintiff makes an initial case by showing that:
- he has a bona fide religious belief and its practice conflicts with his employment duties;
- he informed his employer of his beliefs and the conflict; and
- his employer threatened him with or subjected him to discriminatory treatment because of his inability to satisfy his job duties.
Lawson satisfied the first two elements, but not the third. Lawson first approached his TAC with his decision to resign before he addressed the conflict with his religious beliefs. Although he asked about accommodations, he was not threatened with or subjected to discriminatory treatment beyond knowing about the WSP’s policy that a breach of the rules would result in discipline.
In effect, the Court concluded that Lawson did not fully investigate the possibilities before he resigned. His talk with the personnel director who confirmed that WSP would make no accommodations occurred after his resignation when the WSP had no further duty to attempt an accommodation.