Darrell Patterson, Petitioner v. Walgreen Co.

This case asked whether Title VII can require an employer to offer a partial religious accommodation when a full one would cause undue hardship (significant difficulty or cost), and whether an employer may rely on speculative harm to show that hardship. On Feb. 24, 2020, the Supreme Court declined review, so it did not decide those questions and left the Eleventh Circuit's result in place.

The Court declined review on Feb. 24, 2020. No vote count or opinion lineup is provided here.

The dispute matters to workers seeking schedule changes or other religious accommodations, such as someone who cannot work on a Sabbath day. It also matters to employers deciding whether they must try a limited accommodation instead of denying the request outright.

There is no further Supreme Court action in this docket. The lower-court result stays in place, but the broader legal questions may return in another case.

The petition asked whether Title VII can require a partial religious accommodation when a full one would be too burdensome. It also asked whether an employer can claim hardship based on predicted, not proven, harm.

Employees who need schedule changes for religious practice could be affected, especially workers who cannot work on certain holy days. Employers also could be affected when deciding how far they must go to adjust work rules.

The Court ended its involvement by declining review. That means the Eleventh Circuit's result remained in place, and the Supreme Court did not answer the merits questions.