Chick-fil-A Franchisee Fired a Delivery Manager Who Asked for No Saturday Shifts to Keep Her Sabbath, the EEOC Alleged in a May 2026 Suit

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

A delivery manager at a Chick-fil-A franchise in Austin thought she’d already handled the hardest part of balancing work and faith: she brought up her need to keep Saturdays free for her Sabbath during the interview, got hired anyway, and for a while, the schedule matched what she’d been promised.

Then the schedule changed, and the stakes went from routine shift planning to someone’s paycheck. In a lawsuit announced May 14, 2026, and described in the EEOC’s release, the agency alleged that Hatch Trick, Inc.—a Chick-fil-A franchisee operating multiple locations in Austin—refused to accommodate the manager’s Saturday Sabbath observance and ultimately fired her.

She told them up front: Saturdays were off the table

According to the EEOC, the employee is a member of the United Church of God, a denomination that observes a Saturday Sabbath. That meant no Saturday shifts—something she says she disclosed during her job interview before she ever accepted the role.

The job wasn’t a minor position, either. The EEOC described her as the manager of Hatch Trick’s delivery drivers at one Austin location, which puts her in the middle of day-to-day operations: staffing, coordinating drivers, and keeping deliveries moving.

At first, the company allegedly honored her request. That early stretch matters, because it set an expectation: this was workable, and the business had already been operating with her not working Saturdays.

The flip came months later, when “no Saturdays” became “you must”

The EEOC says that after several months, Hatch Trick reversed course and demanded that she work on Saturdays. For someone who treats Sabbath observance as non-negotiable, that’s not a small tweak—it’s an ultimatum.

The complaint, as described by the agency, paints a familiar workplace pressure point: once staffing needs tighten or priorities shift, the employee’s accommodation becomes viewed as optional. The lawsuit alleges the company treated it that way, even though she had been clear from the start.

This is where the story stops being about a single shift and turns into a management decision with career consequences. A delivery manager being forced onto Saturdays isn’t just losing one day off; it can mean losing the ability to keep the job at all.

Meetings, alternatives, and a door that stayed shut

The EEOC says the employee didn’t just refuse and walk away. Instead, she made additional requests for a religious accommodation and met with company officials multiple times to discuss what she needed.

She also suggested “a number of alternatives,” according to the lawsuit, aimed at keeping her in her managerial role while still honoring her Sabbath. The press release doesn’t list the alternatives, but the important detail is that she tried to problem-solve within the workplace—offering options rather than leaving the company to guess.

Those efforts didn’t get her a workable path forward, the EEOC alleges. Hatch Trick rejected all the options that would have allowed her to remain a manager while abstaining from Saturday work.

The choice she was given: demotion or unemployment

Instead of approving a schedule accommodation for the managerial role, the EEOC says the company told her she could move to a non-managerial delivery driver position. That wasn’t presented as a lateral shift. The agency describes it as lower pay, reduced benefits, and fewer hours.

That kind of “accommodation” can feel less like flexibility and more like punishment: keep your Sabbath, but only if you accept a downgrade. The EEOC’s lawsuit frames it that way by emphasizing the economic hit attached to the proposed move.

When the employee declined the driver position, Hatch Trick discharged her, according to the EEOC. In other words, the alleged final offer wasn’t a compromise so much as a narrowing tunnel: accept the demotion or lose the job.

Why the EEOC says this crosses the legal line

The agency is suing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination because of religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the business.

In announcing the suit, acting EEOC Dallas Regional Attorney Ronald L. Phillips framed the obligation as a core workplace duty, saying, “Just as adherence to the dictates of one’s own conscience is not optional, so too an employer’s duty under Title VII is obligatory, and the EEOC stands ready to enforce that legal duty.”

EEOC San Antonio Field Office Director Norma Guzman also underscored the agency’s position, stating, “Religious discrimination in the workplace is unlawful, and employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held beliefs. Title VII protects employees’ rights to observe their religious beliefs, and no employee’s livelihood should come at the expense of their religious convictions.”

The lawsuit is filed as EEOC v. Hatch Trick, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01275, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The EEOC said it attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process before filing in court.

What people tend to focus on in disputes like this

Cases like this often turn on practical details that employees and managers live with every week: who covers the hard-to-staff days, whether there was an honest attempt to adjust schedules, and whether the “solution” offered is really a solution or just a way to push someone out.

Another flashpoint is documentation. The EEOC’s description highlights that the employee disclosed the Saturday restriction during the interview, and later met with officials multiple times while proposing alternatives. That kind of timeline—what was said, when, and how the employer responded—typically becomes the backbone of any workplace dispute that escalates beyond an internal meeting.

And then there’s the money question. The alleged offer to move her from manager to driver with lower pay, reduced benefits, and fewer hours is the sort of detail that shapes how people interpret intent: was the company trying to accommodate, or trying to make staying so costly that leaving looked like the only choice?

For now, the EEOC’s allegations put Hatch Trick’s handling of the request under a bright light: a schedule change, a refusal to approve Saturday-free management work, a demotion offer, and a termination when that offer was declined. The court will be where those claims are tested, but the core drama is already clear—when an employer decides faith-based scheduling needs are negotiable, someone’s job can become the bargaining chip.