From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Unión Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Puerto Rico
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
279 F.3d 49 (2002)
David Cruz-Carrillo, a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, began working as a temporary employee for the Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA) in Puerto Rico and became a permanent employee several years later. Cruz-Carrillo did not disclose his religious beliefs in his application, but his application reflected that he attended Seventh-Day Adventist schools. The Seventh-Day Adventist faith forbids its members from becoming members of labor organizations. Unión Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (the union) (defendant) maintained a collective-bargaining agreement with AAA that contained a union-security clause. Under the union-security clause, when Cruz-Carrillo became a permanent employee of AAA, he was required to join the union. According to the union, Cruz-Carrillo did not initially object to union membership. Instead, Cruz-Carrillo objected at different points to taking a union-loyalty oath, paying union dues, attending union meetings on Saturdays, and joining union strikes or demonstrations. The union accommodated each of Cruz-Carrillo’s issues: it modified its standard loyalty oath so that it was merely an affirmation, transferred any portion of Cruz-Carrillo’s dues not directly used to pay his fringe benefits to a nonprofit organization, and exempted Cruz-Carrillo from the union’s demonstrations and Saturday meetings. Only at that point did Cruz-Carrillo reject the union’s proposals and claim that his faith prevented him from participating in the union. The union eventually initiated disciplinary proceedings against Cruz-Carrillo for failing to become a union member, and he was suspended from employment at AAA. Cruz-Carrillo filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff). The EEOC sued the union on Cruz-Carrillo’s behalf in federal court, alleging that the union discriminated against Cruz-Carrillo based upon his religion in violation of Title VII. The district court granted the EEOC’s summary-judgment motion. The union appealed. The union conceded that the Seventh-Day Adventist faith opposes union membership but contested that Cruz-Carrillo does not always adhere to Seventh-Day Adventist practices. For example, Cruz-Carrillo divorced, worked five days instead of the six days required of Seventh-Day Adventists, and took an oath before a notary when he became a public employee.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Torruella, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.