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

Related Parts of This Source

1,782 chars

accommodation because it “eliminates the conflict between employment requirements

and religious practices by allowing the individual to observe fully religious holy days and

requires him only to give up compensation for a day that he did not in fact work.” Id. at

70. The Court further noted that unpaid leave did not affect the employee’s employment

opportunities or job status. Id. at 70-71. However, the Court cautioned that if the benefit

of paid personal days was provided in a discriminatory manner, i.e., available for any

purpose except a religious holiday, then it was being applied in a discriminatory manner.

Id. at 71.

Ansonia was cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at

502, and we find its reasoning persuasive. We adopt the federal definition and hold that a

“reasonable accommodation” is one that resolves the conflict between the employee’s

work duties and religious beliefs and does not impact their benefits or job status.

Suarez asserts that her need to observe several religious holidays throughout the

year conflicted with her work schedule. She declared that she told the School about this

conflict, and the School failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by granting her leave

for every holiday. The collective bargaining agreement provided each employee with

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

two days of unpaid leave to observe religious holidays.3 Under the agreement,

employees wishing to utilize their religious holidays must notify their supervisor in

writing at least 14 days in advance of their intent to take unpaid leave for purposes of

faith. The collective bargaining agreement requires the employer to grant the leave