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

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/383814_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,734 chars

request unless it would impose an undue hardship as defined by chapter 82-56 WAC.

On this appeal, we do not decide whether two days of unpaid leave is a reasonable

accommodation for seven religious holidays because the School does not make this

argument. Instead, the School responds that it attempted to accommodate Suarez’s

religious holidays, even granting her more leave than the collective bargaining agreement

allowed. But the School contends that granting Suarez leave on September 29 would

have caused an undue hardship. Suarez disputes this assertion. She contends that

employees frequently called in as unavailable for several reasons, and the School had a

procedure for covering those shifts, including requiring employees to work mandatory

overtime as provided in the collective bargaining agreement. Before deciding this issue,

we must define “undue hardship.”

3
This provision mirrors RCW 1.16.050(3), which grants certain state employees
“two unpaid holidays per calendar year for a reason of faith or conscience or an
organized activity conducted under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or
religious organization.” Under this statute, the employer shall grant the employee’s leave
request “unless the employee’s absence would impose an undue hardship on the
employer or the employee is necessary to maintain public safety.”

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

In Kumar, the court recognized that “‘undue hardship’ results whenever an

accommodation ‘require[s an employer] to bear more than a de minimis cost.’” Kumar,

180 Wn.2d at 502 (alteration in original) (quoting Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,