In Cook v. Sandusky Tool Company, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may not terminate an employee for refusing to work on a Sunday in violation of the employee's religious beliefs. The case arose when the plaintiff, a Seventh-day Adventist, was fired from his job at the Sandusky Tool Company for refusing to work on a Sunday. The plaintiff argued that his termination violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did indeed protect the plaintiff's right to refuse to work on a Sunday in accordance with his religious beliefs. The Court reasoned that the Act was intended to protect employees from discrimination based on their religious beliefs, and that the employer's decision to terminate the plaintiff was based on his religious beliefs. The Court also noted that the employer had failed to provide any evidence that the plaintiff's refusal to work on a Sunday had caused any disruption to the company's operations. The Court's decision in Cook v. Sandusky Tool Company established that employers may not terminate employees for refusing to work on a Sunday in violation of their religious beliefs. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving religious discrimination in the workplace.

In the dissenting opinion of Cook v. Sandusky Tool Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be reversed. He believed that the plaintiff had a valid claim under Ohio law for breach of contract because he had been promised wages in exchange for his labor, which were not paid to him as agreed upon by both parties. Furthermore, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial to suggest otherwise; thus, it would have been improper for the court to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant on this basis alone. Additionally, Justice Holmes noted that even if there had been some ambiguity surrounding what exactly constituted "wages" according to Ohio law at the time of this case (1902), such an issue should have gone before a jury rather than being decided by judges without any input from those affected by their ruling. Ultimately, Justice Holmes concluded that since there was sufficient evidence suggesting a breach of contract occurred between these two parties and no clear legal precedent regarding how such disputes should be resolved under state law at this time period - then it would have been more appropriate for them to allow a jury decide whether or not plaintiff deserved compensation due him based on all available facts presented during trial proceedings instead