The Supreme Court may hear yet another fascinating case pitting religious freedom against the decision-making rights of private businesses. In this case, it involves one man’s desire to honor the Sabbath and his right to work at a company free of religious discrimination.
Darrell Patterson was a practicing Seventh-day Adventist who worked for Walgreens for six years. Seventh-day Adventists honor the seventh day, Saturday , because God commanded his people to do so. Patterson had an agreement with his supervisor at Walgreens: Because he was a Seventh-day Adventist, he could not work on Saturday, but fellow co-workers covered any of Patterson’s shifts during that period of time. For six years, Patterson didn’t work on Saturdays but never failed to perform well at his job, and often traded Sunday shifts with co-workers to accommodate his faith’s practices.
However, one Saturday, Walgreens executives scheduled an emergency weekend training on Saturday after an error the company made. Patterson was unable to attend the training and was subsequently fired.
In 2014, Patterson sued Walgreens for religious discrimination. The basis for the suit was Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination because of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Yet despite the law clearly barring religious discrimination, so far, lower courts have sided with Walgreens. In 2018, Patterson appealed to the Supreme Court, and now they may hear the case, Patterson v. Walgreen Co.
Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund, which is representing Patterson, said in an email:
This seems to me like such a no-brainer, as workplace discrimination laws are quite clear. However, I would not be surprised to see a protest at the Supreme Court with an obvious counter argument: If businesses with a religious owner can discriminate against others (such as the baker who declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), why can’t a nonreligious entity such as Walgreens discriminate against a religious person?
This is, of course, one of the most difficult aspects of navigating the complexity of the First Amendment and discrimination. The difference lies in the answer to these questions: What is discrimination? What do free speech and free exercise entail?
If Walgreens fired Patterson because of poor performance, that’s their right and it’s not a violation of federal discrimination law. If Walgreens fired Patterson because he didn’t attend a meeting because he was practicing his religion as he had for the last six years, well, that’s slightly different. It’s a violation of federal law and his First Amendment freedoms.
Just like if Jack Phillips refused to sell any items in his shop to the gay couple because they were gay and he didn’t care for gay people (or Native Americans, or Catholics, or elderly people) that would be blatant discrimination. Yet importantly, if Phillips refuses to honor a specific event that violates his religious beliefs, the gay couple’s attempt to force him to do so is an attempt to “compel speech” and that is a violation of Phillips’ First Amendment free speech rights.
In either case, no doubt Patterson’s case will receive attention and criticism. However, Patterson’s track record shows he did not utilize his Sabbath observance as a way to get out of work or make excuses. And no hard-working employee should have to choose between keeping his job and abiding by a religion he has practiced faithfully for years.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
