Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,717 chars

employee. The School points out that the only way to change Suarez’s days off was to

change positions to one with days off that do not conflict with her Sabbath. But changing

her position without going through the bidding system would violate the collective

bargaining agreement. The School relies on Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, to support its position

that an accommodation is an undue hardship if it causes the employer to violate a

collective bargaining agreement.

In Hardison, the Court considered whether an employee’s request to change his

schedule to accommodate his religious beliefs would cause the employer undue hardship.

Like the School, the employees were unionized and worked in a department that operated

24 hours a day, seven days a week. More senior employees had first choice of shift

assignments, and less senior employees were often left with less desirable shifts. The

employee in Hardison sought and obtained a job that required him to work on occasional

Saturdays. The union was not willing to violate the seniority system, and the employee

did not have enough seniority to bid for shifts having Saturday off. When the employee

refused to work on Saturday, he was terminated for insubordination.

The United States Supreme Court held that the employer’s duty to accommodate

an employee’s religious beliefs did not require the employer to take steps inconsistent

20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

with a collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 79. In other words, an employer’s duty to

accommodate does not entitle an employee to preferences over other employees because

of their religious practices: