International Association of Machinists v. Boeing Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
833 F.2d 165 (1987)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge 751 (the union) (plaintiff) entered into a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Boeing Company (defendant). The CBA included a provision that required employees to pay union fees. Thomasine Nichols (defendant), a Boeing employee, requested an exemption from paying union fees because doing so would violate her religious beliefs and offered to make a charitable contribution instead. Although Nichols’s church did not object to union membership, she developed her own sincere opposition through private Bible study. The union rejected the request and asked that Boeing terminate Nichols’s employment. Boeing refused. The union sued to compel Boeing to arbitrate the issue of whether terminating Nichols was warranted. Boeing argued that terminating Nichols would violate the religious-accommodation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The union argued that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) superseded Title VII and that Title VII’s religious-accommodation requirement violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The district court entered summary judgment for Boeing and Nichols, and the union appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beezer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,600 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
