Reed v. Great Lakes Cos.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
330 F.3d 931 (2003)
- Written by Nan Futrell, JD
Facts
Melvin Reed (plaintiff) was hired as the executive housekeeper at a Holiday Inn hotel operated by Great Lakes Cos. (Great Lakes) (defendant). Part of Reed’s job was to ensure that Bibles, provided to the hotel for free by local Gideons, were placed in each room. Members of hotel management routinely met with Gideons when they delivered the Bibles. Less than a month after Reed was hired, he was asked to accompany the hotel manager to one of these receiving meetings. Reed did not object. During the meeting, in addition to handing over the Bibles, the Gideons unexpectedly read from the Bible aloud and prayed. Reed was offended and left the meeting early, which embarrassed the hotel manager. Afterward, the manager confronted Reed and ordered him not to behave that way in the future. Reed resisted, telling the manager that he would not be compelled to attend a religious event. After a heated exchange, the manager fired Reed for insubordination. Reed sued, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. At a pretrial deposition, Reed refused to indicate what, if any, religious beliefs he held. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes. Reed appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
