Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1977Docket #414820
53 L. Ed. 2d 113 97 S. Ct. 2264 432 U.S. 63 1977 U.S. LEXIS 115 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 7620 14 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1697 Employment Discrimination Labor Law Constitutional Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: An employer is not required by Title VII to accommodate an employee’s religious practices by violating a bona fide seniority system or by incurring anything more than a minimal, or “de minimis,” cost. The employer, TWA, prevailed.

Legal Significance: This landmark case established the “de minimis cost” standard for what constitutes an “undue hardship” on an employer under Title VII’s religious accommodation requirement, significantly limiting the scope of an employer’s duty to accommodate.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Respondent Larry Hardison, an employee of petitioner Trans World Airlines (TWA), was a member of the Worldwide Church of God, which prohibits work from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. TWA’s Kansas City maintenance base operated 24/7, and shift assignments were governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). The CBA included a seniority system for bidding on shifts and jobs. After Hardison voluntarily transferred to a new building, he lacked the seniority to avoid Saturday shifts. TWA held meetings with Hardison and authorized the union to seek a voluntary shift swap, but none could be arranged without violating the seniority system, which the union was unwilling to do. TWA rejected Hardison’s proposals that he work a four-day week or that TWA find a replacement, as these would leave a shift understaffed, require paying premium overtime wages, or force a senior employee to switch shifts. After refusing to work on Saturdays, TWA discharged Hardison for insubordination. Hardison sued TWA and IAM for religious discrimination under Title VII.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require an employer to accommodate an employee’s religious observance by breaching the seniority provisions of a valid collective bargaining agreement or by incurring more than a de minimis cost?

No. TWA did not violate Title VII because its proposed accommodations were Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require an employer to accommodate an employee’s religious observance by breaching the seniority provisions of a valid collective bargaining agreement or by incurring more than a de minimis cost?

Conclusion

This decision remains a cornerstone of religious accommodation jurisprudence, establishing a high Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no

Legal Rule

Under Title VII, an employer is not required to take steps inconsistent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum do

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court's analysis centered on the statutory concepts of "reasonable accommodation" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cill

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An employer’s duty to provide religious accommodation under Title VII does
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is practice.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+