Wren v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc.

595 F.2d 441, 19 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 584, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15710, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 9104
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 3, 1979
DocketNo. 78-1593
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 595 F.2d 441 (Wren v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wren v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc., 595 F.2d 441, 19 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 584, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15710, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 9104 (8th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

VAN SICKLE, District Judge.

Donald Wren appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing his action against T.I.M.E. — D.C., Inc. Wren alleges that T.I.M.E. — D.C. discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs and practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The trial court, following the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977), concluded that T.I.M.E. — D.C. was unable to accommodate Wren’s religious practices in a reasonable manner without undue hardship. We affirm.

Wren had been an employee of T.I.M.E.D.C., an interstate trucking operation, since 1965. He was an over-the-road truck driver and had been a member of Local 600 of the Teamsters Union approximately nineteen years.

The St. Louis terminal operates 365 days a year and is a critical link in T.I.M.E.-D. C.’s trucking operation which covers basically the entire continental United States. At the time suit was brought, approximately sixty over-the-road truck drivers were employed at the St. Louis terminal.

The St. Louis terminal operates under a contract with Local 600 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. This agreement subjected the St. Louis terminal to a seniority system. This seniority system is important in scheduling drivers on the various runs. Approximately sixty percent of the over-the-road drivers’ runs are [443]*443bid runs. The remaining drivers are placed on the extra board.

Drivers, according to their seniority, may bid for set schedule runs during a bidding period that occurs once every six months. The bid run is desirable in that it consists of a schedule with a regular departure time, regular days off, a regular number of work hours per week, and a more steady paycheck.

Over-the-road drivers who are unable to secure a bid run because they lack seniority or are unwilling to secure a bid run for any personal reasons are placed on the extra board. Extra board drivers haul freight as it becomes available and must be available for call from the dispatcher twice daily. The extra board is also subject to the seniority system. Drivers on the extra board with the most seniority are called first and may reject the run only if extra board drivers with less seniority are available. If no extra board drivers with less seniority are available, the driver called is required to protect the shift by driving the run. Any driver on the extra board may decline a run for certain reasons. Some of these reasons are sickness of a driver, more than seventy hours of driving within eight days, or excused absence secured in advance of the dispatch. Thus, the least senior extra board driver contacted, who is without a sufficient excuse for not making the run, must make the run.

If all the extra board drivers are either assigned or have excused absences and there is still a need for drivers for the scheduled number of runs, the dispatcher checks with off-duty bid drivers, laid off city drivers, and casual road drivers1 in that order. If either city drivers or casual road drivers are utilized, T.I.M.E.-D.C. is required under the union contract to make certain contributions to insurance and pension funds.2 The substitute drivers do not have to be available for call from the dispatcher and, even if contacted, may refuse the run at will. This creates a problem in that if the dispatcher cannot locate a driver within a certain time period, a run may have to be cancelled. Since dispatches out of St. Louis are timed to relay with dispatches out of other T.I.M.E.-D.C. terminals, unavailability of a driver may result in delay or cancellation of both runs, causing T.I.M.E.-D.C. to experience a double economic loss and the customers to experience a delay in service.

Between 1974 and 1976, T.I.M.E.-D.C. was in serious financial difficulty. In an all-out effort to turn the company around, there were stringent measures taken. One of the measures taken was to reduce the number of drivers employed and to utilize the remaining drivers to their utmost capacity. Because certain benefits such as health, welfare, and pension costs are set, it is more economical to work one driver seventy hours per week than to work each of two drivers thirty-five hours per week.

At the time of this suit, Wren was 44-years old. In his thirteen years with T.I.M. E — D.C., he had climbed to twenty-fourth out of fifty-nine drivers on the seniority list at the St. Louis terminal. In August of 1972, Wren began to study the beliefs of the Worldwide Church of God and was baptized into that faith in April of 1973. One of the principles of the religion is that the Sabbath, which is celebrated from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, is a day of rest on which no work may be done. All parties agree that Mr. Wren’s religious sincerity is not an issue in this case.

In April of 1973, Mr. Wren provided Tom Thiene, T.I.M.E.-D.C. Terminal Manager at St. Louis, with documents explaining the basic tenets of the Worldwide Church of God regarding its Sabbath and Holy Days. [444]*444Since Wren’s seniority was not high enough to secure a bid run that would not conflict with his Sabbath, he remained on the extra board. From 1973 through 1976, Wren was able to avoid work on most Sabbaths without incident. During this period of time, the company had a large pool of drivers, and the dispatchers would usually call Wren only when the extra board was exhausted. This same arrangement was apparently available to the other extra board drivers when they wanted time off. However, Wren was not immune from work on his Sabbath. Information compiled from his driver’s log books indicate that Wren worked on all or part of his Sabbath twelve days in 1973, sixteen days in 1974, eleven days in 1975, and nine days in 1976.

On May 5, 1976, Robert Grempler became the St. Louis Terminal Manager. In an effort to cure the company’s financial difficulties, Grempler reduced the number of drivers, and tried to utilize them to their maximum number of hours per week. Because of this reduction in drivers, the extra board became exhausted much more often than before, and Wren was asked to drive on his Sabbath with increased frequency. In June of 1976, Wren and another driver, who was a member of the Worldwide Church of God, asked for excused absences on their Sabbath. Grempler refused the requests with the following reply:

In reference to your request for excused absences, failure to protect your work shift when required in compliance with the National Master Freight Agreement and Central States Area Over the Road Supplemental Agreement, will result in disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.

In 1977, Wren began to insist that he would work on the Sabbath only in an emergency. Wren claimed an emergency existed only when less senior extra board drivers, off duty bid drivers, laid off city drivers, and casual drivers were all unavailable. But Grempler demanded that Wren be available to drive when the extra board was exhausted.

Wren then resorted to using his ingenuity to avoid working on the Sabbath. He scheduled dentist and chiropractor appointments on Saturdays.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Co
64 F.4th 861 (Seventh Circuit, 2023)
Mathis v. Christian Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
158 F. Supp. 3d 317 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2016)
Todd Sturgill v. UPS
Eighth Circuit, 2008
Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
512 F.3d 1024 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
Cook v. Chrysler Corp.
779 F. Supp. 1016 (E.D. Missouri, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
595 F.2d 441, 19 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 584, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15710, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 9104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wren-v-time-dc-inc-ca8-1979.