Hedican v. Walmart

Becket Role:


Decision Date:
March 21, 2022
Deciding Court:
United States Supreme Court

Case Snapshot

Many Americans from many different religious traditions observe holy days such as Christmas or Yom Kippur, including, for some, a weekly Sabbath day. For Seventh-day Adventists, the Sabbath is observed from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, a time when they abstain from working and devote their day to God and family. When Ed Hedican received a job offer from Walmart, he accepted the position and requested a scheduling accommodation for his Adventist Sabbath observance. Rather than offer any accommodation, Walmart rescinded the job offer. Because Mr. Hedican was forced to choose between his faith and his job, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit against Walmart under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which compels employers to “reasonably accommodate” the religious practice of their employees. The district and appeals courts sided with the company, relying on a 1977 Supreme Court ruling in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison that allows corporations to discriminate against their employees if providing religious accommodation imposes even the slightest inconvenience.


The EEOC, which sued Walmart for discriminating against Ed Hedican, lost at the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and did not ask for the Supreme Court’s review of that decision. Seeking to protect Mr. Hedican’s rights, Becket petitioned the Supreme Court to let Mr. Hedican into the case, and asked the Court to reverse the decision below. On March 21, 2022, the Supreme Court sent this case back to the Seventh Circuit, asking that court to reconsider Mr. Hedican’s request to intervene in light of a new Supreme Court decision with similar facts and legal analysis. Following this decision from the Supreme Court, the parties settled the case.

Case Summary

Sabbath day observance, a pillar of faith 

Sabbath day observance is a crucial part of many faiths—a day ordained by God when one abstains from the distractions of daily life in order to devote time to family, community, and worshiping God. As their name indicates, this practice is particularly sacred to Seventh-day Adventists, who observe the Sabbath from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown. Many employers voluntarily make allowances for Sabbath day observance, recognizing its essential role in the wellbeing of their religious employees. 

In April of 2016, Ed Hedican was offered a position as an assistant manager at Walmart. When he accepted the position, he requested a religious accommodation so that he would not have to work on the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath. Though he asked not to be scheduled from on his Sabbath, he was willing to work any other time of the week, including Saturday after sundown.  

A corporation’s disregard for religious rights 

In response to Mr. Hedican’s request, Walmart refused to provide religious accommodation for the Sabbath and rescinded his job offer. Although Mr. Hedican was qualified for the position, and eager to work with Walmart to achieve a compromise (volunteering to work any other day of the week, including nights, and 12-hour shifts), Walmart refused, suggesting he apply to an hourly position of lower pay and lower rank. Though it is the largest non-governmental employer in the United States, Walmart claimed that any accommodation made for Mr. Hedican’s Sabbath observance would burden impose “undue hardship” on the company. 

The average salary of a Walmart assistant manager is just over $50,000. In contrast, Walmart—the largest private employer in the United States—amassed over half a trillion dollars in revenue in 2020 alone, making any cost or inconvenience of religious accommodation in this instance negligible. Yet Walmart even declined to investigate whether costless accommodations were available, such as allowing assistant managers (there were eight at this particular store) to arrange voluntary shift swaps amongst themselves.  

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination due to factors such as religion, race, and gender. Mr. Hedican submitted a charge of discrimination to the EEOC, explaining that Walmart was not reasonably accommodating his religious exercise, as is required by law.  

Correcting a harmful precedent 

In the EEOC’s subsequent suit against Walmart, the federal trial and appellate courts ruled for Walmart, relying heavily on an old Supreme Court precedent from 1977. In Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Court ruled that companies may refuse to provide religious accommodation for their employees if providing such an accommodation presents the company with even a minor inconvenience.   

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit interpreted that precedent to mean that even a chance that shift-swaps would burden Walmart’s rotation system, without concrete evidence, was enough to rule for Walmart. This rule enables corporations like Walmart, the largest employer in the U.S., to discriminate against religious employees if accommodating them would cause a burden as trivial as rearranging work shifts.  

On behalf of Mr. Hedican, Becket asked the Court to revisit the Trans World Airlines decision and its interpretation in the lower courts, and defend the constitutional right of every American, including shift workers like Mr. Hedican, to work according to their conscience and their faith 

This case is important for all Americans who are faced with similar conflicts in the workplace, put to the choice between their faith and providing for their family even where reasonable accommodation is possible. People are more than punches in a timecard, and the law should assure that every American has the right to live and work according to their religious convictions.  

Importance to Religious Liberty:

Individual Freedom—Religious exercise encompasses more than just thought or worship—it involves visibly practicing the signs of one’s faith, at home and at work. All Americans must be free to live according to their consciences without fear of losing their jobs.  

Case Information

Becket Role:
Case Start Date:
September 27, 2018
Deciding Court:
United States Supreme Court
Original Court:
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Supreme Court Status:
Granted, Vacated and Remanded
Practice Area(s):