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

Related Parts of This Source

1,765 chars

advising her to apply for a position with scheduled days off that did not conflict with the

observation of her Sabbath. As an example, Suarez points out that during her

employment, a position opened up with Saturdays off that was filled by a probationary

employee with less seniority than Suarez. She contends that the School had a duty to

take “affirmative steps to allow [Suarez] to fill this position.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at

11. We agree that if this position would have resolved the conflict, the School should

have suggested to Suarez that she apply for the position.

The School did not respond to this suggested accommodation in its brief on

appeal. When asked at oral argument, the School acknowledged that taking these

affirmative steps would not be an undue hardship. Nevertheless, the School contends that

it provided this accommodation when it included Suarez in a mass email to all employees

announcing the job opening. The School argues that it was not required to do more

because its duty to accommodate does not include the level of “hand-holding” suggested

by Suarez, citing Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944, 952 (7th Cir. 2012).

In Porter, the union employee’s work schedule conflicted with her Sunday church

services. The employee was told that her request to change to a job assignment with

Sundays off would be accommodated when an opening became available. Id. at 949. In

22
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

the meantime, her supervisor suggested a watch (shift) change to different hours of work

to accommodate the employee’s church services. The employee expressed no interest in

this accommodation and wanted her days off changed.