Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:03CV-737-H.
March 22, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion to reconsider the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 17, 2006 denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant states that "the Court's holding clearly applies a `pretext' analysis to Plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim, the Court found that there was an issue of fact whether Golden Brands' decision to enforce its uniform policy was born of discriminatory animus." Defendant misunderstands the Court's holding — the Court is well aware that a McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm is inapplicable to Plaintiffs' claim for religious discrimination based on a failure to accommodate. Rather, the Court found that Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine material issue of fact as to whether the accommodation would in fact present an undue hardship to Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that Defendant previously accommodated their religious beliefs for significant period of time by permitting them to wear extra-large, extra-long untucked shirts. When viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, this evidence suggests that Defendant may be able to accommodate their religious beliefs without undue hardship to its business. As the case law notes, it is Defendant's burden to show that it cannot accommodate Plaintiffs' religious beliefs without an undue hardship to its business, and the evidence is simply not sufficient for the Court to determine at the summary judgment stage that such a hardship exists.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to reconsider is DENIED.